An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how [Archive] - Page 2

The Almond

24th July 2007, 11:09 AM

Thanks for agreeing with 1 and 2.

I have no problem with fact, no matter who says it.

But then you are wrong.
This, from the guy who thinks a 25% increase in column load is marginal.

Due to the design of the floor connections to the perimeter and core columns, the floors cannot transfer any vertical loads from the perimeter columns to the core columns during any alleged load re-distribution due to heating the floors! What does this mean for WTC2?
This means that you have completely misrepresented NIST's mechanism for load distribution. And you've supported your contention without reference, evidence or calculation.

NIST clearly states on page 297 of NCSTAR 1-6 the actual load transfer mechanisms. It does not rely entirely on the floors to establish load transfer, and it includes an analysis of the hat truss load transfer mechanism (a point that you have conveniently omitted).

According NIST the east wall buckled at the damaged floors around floor 82 and there was load redistribution, i.e. the weight of the undamaged section above carried by the east wall was transferred to the north and south walls and the core columns.

You appear to be referencing 1-6 page 307. It would be helpful for other readers if you would reference your claims, especially when you're summarizing what you think NIST wrote.

However - no load could be transferred from the perimeter columns to the core via the floors.
While this may be true, the load could be transferred via the hat truss, spandrels and other load transfer mechanisms. You are using an incredibly dishonest half truth here.

The trusses cannot transfer any big loads as shear and will not participate in the load re-distribution! (The only load on the floor truss transferred to the columns as shear is the weight of furniture, etc. (20 kgs/m² according NIST) on the truss and its own weight through a very small connection ot the truss to the column.
References? Calculations?

The load on the east wall can only be transferred to the north and south walls via the horizontal bracings keeping the perimeter together sideways at every floor. Either they manage to do that or they shear off ... like the floor connections of the east wall ... and the whole east wall above the buckled section would fall down to the ground! The east wall below the damaged section and the whole tower below the damaged section would stand.
References? Calculations?

Maybe some parts of the north and south walls would also fall down, but the west wall and the core evidently should stand! Quite basic, actually. That's why no steel skyscraper has ever globally collapsed.
Pardon me? No steel skyscraper has ever globally collapsed?

Local collapse of some areas for various reasons, yes.
Such as weakening through heat, sagging of floor trusses and so on?

Compare the building in Oklahoma city,
If I knew absolutely nothing about building design, structural analysis and basic construction, I would compare the WTC towers to the Oklahoma city building. The two structures are not comparable.

where a home made bomb removed the perimeter columns of the front wall at ground level!
I'm missing the part where an airplane smashes into the OK city building.

The whole front wall fell down ... but the remainder of the building remained standing. Reason - the floors did not re-distribute load to the other side of the building.
WHERE DID THE LOAD GO????

So the NIST proposal (without any evidence)
I think you're confusing the NCSTAR with everything you've written in this post.

that global collapse of the whole tower ensues when the east wall first buckles and then collapses is wrong.
I would love to see your analysis, your calculations, your references, your published documents, etc., to prove this.

Only the east wall above the damaged east wall section would fall down,
See above.

i.e. only a local collapse would occur. The core and the west wall should be standing and probably most of the south and north walls. And the whole tower below the damaged floors.
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but you're simply restating your original opinion without evidence, calculations or references.

All proposals of the heat weaking the structure all around and the core in the damaged area is just nonsense to confuse local collapse with global collapse.
Your opinion does not matter in this debate.

NIST should be asked why not only local collapse ensued due to some local failures, i.e. only the east wall above the damaged area falling down.
They would probably tell you to look at the extensive FEA they completed, along with the calculations about load distribution, column deflection, and their comprehensive thermodynamic analysis of the fires. Then they would probably ask you why WTC 2 was leaning 8 degrees off plumb before collapse if only local failures were to blame.

But local collapse did not ensue. Suddenly the whole building explodes from the damaged area down to the bottom. What we see on all videos is not global collapse ... that should take much longer time ... but controlled demolition. No doubt about it.You continue to restate your opinion as fact. That will not work here.

Heiwa

24th July 2007, 11:29 AM

While this may be true, the load could be transferred via the hat truss, spandrels and other load transfer mechanisms. You are using an incredibly dishonest half truth here.

Good that you agree that the floors are just hanging between the perimeter and core columns with help of their trusses and do not contribute one jota to the global strength of the tower. They are only there to provide fire division between the floors.

This means that a sagging floor will not pull in any perimeter columns.

Actually the concrete floors with their trusses should be completely ignored in a serious analysis and we should only concentrate on members that can transfer loads between the perimeter and core columns. And as they are fully intact above the impact zone, the load distribution is very effective and no column will overload in the impact zone if we, e.g. remove the east wall completely. It is called redundancy.

T.A.M.

24th July 2007, 11:32 AM

twinstead

24th July 2007, 11:42 AM

Again, Heiwa, exactly what would you say to the many experts who would disagree with you? Would they accept you as a peer and have a rousing, esoteric debate with you about insider expert structural engineering stuff, then invite you to their local watering hole to thank you and to enlighten their colleagues about your brilliant, new-found issues with the WTC that they seemed to have completely missed, or perhaps just roll their eyes and wonder just who the heck you are, anyway?

As a total layman I tend to seek out experts to explain stuff like this to me. It's critical that I only listen to people who really know what they are talking about, and perhaps also have as few ideological biases as possible.

So. Exactly why should I be listening to you?

The Almond

24th July 2007, 12:25 PM

Good that you agree that the floors are just hanging between the perimeter and core columns with help of their trusses and do not contribute one jota to the global strength of the tower.

I said that it may be true in the hope that you might provide something other than your opinion on the matter. Until you provide such an analysis, I'm humoring you, not agreeing with you.

They are only there to provide fire division between the floors.

I'd just like to point out that the purpose of a floor is to transfer the live load (people, water and such) to the columns, which then transfer the load to the ground. Floors are not just some fire barrier, they are the active structure of a building.

This means that a sagging floor will not pull in any perimeter columns.

This statement is nonsensical.

Actually the concrete floors with their trusses should be completely ignored in a serious analysis

Have you ever done a serious forensic collapse analysis? Or perhaps you could point to one in literature where the concrete floors were ignored.

and we should only concentrate on members that can transfer loads between the perimeter and core columns.

This would be serious news to all professional engineers in the world. Perhaps you should tell them.

And as they are fully intact above the impact zone,

In the same sense that a person with an arrow in his chest is fully intact above the arrow's impact zone.

the load distribution is very effective

Opinion.

and no column will overload in the impact zone if we, e.g. remove the east wall completely. It is called redundancy.
Opinion.

Frankly Heiwa, your thesis seems to rest upon the rather untenable idea that the sagging of the floors in the WTC towers had no bearing on the collapse itself. You're asking us to accept that idea without any analysis, calculations, evidence or modeling, and despite the fact that it is central to NIST's collapse hypothesis. That's ludicrous.

Newtons Bit

24th July 2007, 12:45 PM

Good that you agree that the floors are just hanging between the perimeter and core columns with help of their trusses and do not contribute one jota to the global strength of the tower. They are only there to provide fire division between the floors.

This means that a sagging floor will not pull in any perimeter columns.

Actually the concrete floors with their trusses should be completely ignored in a serious analysis and we should only concentrate on members that can transfer loads between the perimeter and core columns. And as they are fully intact above the impact zone, the load distribution is very effective and no column will overload in the impact zone if we, e.g. remove the east wall completely. It is called redundancy.

Wow. Let's look at a few things here. The floor slab braces the top chord of the floor trusses against lateral torsional buckling and against axial buckling. The trusses brace the columns against axial buckling. The "brace force" can be computed as approximately 1-3% of the total axial load. This means that the truss needs to be able to resist 1-3% of the axial load in the columns. If the truss is comprimised by fire, it will sag, and if it sags, it will not resist buckling of the columns. This is a very important, although BASIC concept.

The trusses will pull on the columns when the trusses are no longer able to carry the entirety of the bending moments. There is a point where the truss will begin acting more like a tension member. Instead of a truss, invision a rope connected to two columns with a point load in the middle of that rope.

There is also another important mechanics which will pull an out-of-plane force on the exterior columns, namely, the loss of interior columns. How do you think the axial load of an interior column gets redistributed to the rest of the building? Without the hat truss or any of the floor trusses, the column will just fall. The principal way for a column to resist falling is through the members that are attached to it, namely: the floor trusses. The column will fall a certain distance and the floor trusses that are connected to it will elongate (up to the rupture point) and pull the column up. Again, they will become TENSION members putting an axial out-of-plane load on the columns that they are attached to.

The floor trusses are integral to the entire mechanism which resisted the collapse from the initial plane impact. This is obvious to anyone who has spent any time doing structural engineering.

Belz...

24th July 2007, 01:13 PM

Heiwa, maybe you should stick with non-building related work. Gardening, perhaps.

Alferd_Packer

24th July 2007, 02:10 PM

Heiwa, maybe you should stick with non-building related work. Gardening, perhaps.

As long as they're not hanging gardens!

Panoply_Prefect

24th July 2007, 02:25 PM

Make a better effort. Or try at least.

Ok, I agree with the theory summarized by stateofgrace.

How about you?

/S

C'mon Heiwa. I showed you mine, now show me yours.

/S

Heiwa

24th July 2007, 02:36 PM

Thanks for your comments of various kinds.

However, the floors cannot transfer any real gravity loads from perimeter columns to the core columns.

The floors only supported gravity loads on the floors themselves and carried those to the columns. As a diaphragm each floor distributed lateral wind loads between the columns and provided lateral support for the columns. Finally it provided stiffness to resist torsional movement of the tower.

But the floors could not transfer gravity load from, e.g. a damaged perimeter wall to the core columns. It is quite clear from the floor connection to the columns - only a hinge connection - the floor hangs on the column - and from the floor trusses themselves - very little ability to transfer shear.

This means that the NIST proposal of load redistribution to the core (!) when the outer east wall buckles and that global collapse ensues is BS. Gravity loads on the east wall may be only be redistributed to the north and south walls via the spandrels (the horizontal bracings at each floor level). Only local collapse may ensue.

Thus - when the east wall collapses at floor 82, you would expect only the east wall above to fall straight down pulling maybe some bits of the north and south walls with it. The floors above would just shear off the east wall columns and the whole section above would remain in place - except the east wall. The core would evidently remain standing together with the complete west wall and what remains of the south and north walls.

The Almond

24th July 2007, 02:40 PM

Heiwa

24th July 2007, 02:54 PM

I noticed that you couldn't be bothered to respond to Newton's Bit or myself specifically, and instead, you've decided to restate your original position without analysis, evidence or calculations.

Reason being of course that it is irrelevant. When the east wall collapses locally at floor 82 for whatever reason, only the east wall above will fall down due to the way the tower or actually the floors were designed - as clarified in my answer to all. Global collapse will not ensue.

GlennB

24th July 2007, 03:14 PM

Reason being of course that it is irrelevant. When the east wall collapses locally at floor 82 for whatever reason, only the east wall above will fall down due to the way the tower or actually the floors were designed - as clarified in my answer to all. Global collapse will not ensue.

You've been trying really hard to sound like an engineer, so try this -

Look up "hat truss", vis-a-vis the Twin Towers, and what it was designed to do.

Report back, engineer-fashion.

Panoply_Prefect

24th July 2007, 03:50 PM

The towers also incorporated a "hat truss" or "outrigger truss" located between the 107th and 110th floors, which consisted of six trusses along the long axis of core and four along the short axis. This truss system allowed some load redistribution between the perimeter and core columns and supported the transmission tower. It was found to play a key role in the collapse sequence.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-NIST-chapter1)

After the impacts had severed exterior columns and damaged core columns, the loads on these columns were redistributed. The hat trusses at the top of buildings played a significant role in this redistribution of the loads in the structure.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-NIST)

At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperature. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires. The core of the top section tried to move downward, but was held up by the hat truss. The hat truss, in turn redistributed the load to the perimeter columns.

You learn something new everyday.

Cheers,
SLOB

LashL

24th July 2007, 08:40 PM

Heiwa, maybe you should stick with non-building related work. Gardening, perhaps.

Hmm. Having read this entire thread, and having paid particular attention to posts by The Almond, Newtons Bit, and SLOB (among others), I half suspect that gardening might be slightly beyond Heiwa's functional capacity. If this thread is any indication of Heiwa's capabilities - and I can only assume that he/she intended it as representative of his/her capabilities since he/she claimed herein to be a "structural engineer" and then failed utterly to provide any rational responses to legitimate questions thereafter - sadly, I suspect that consultation with a vocational expert as to the types of remunerative vocations that Heiwa might be best suited for would garner a result that includes the phrase, "Would you like fries with that?"

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 03:03 AM

Aren't you forgetting the hat truss?

Dave

OK - so after the east wall on the 82nd floor buckled the east wall above was hanging only on the hat trusses up at the 106th floor that then redistributed that load to the core. Hat trusses are supposed to be able transfer loads as shear. But were the hat trusses strong enough? If so, the east wall above the 82nd floor would not have dropped down ... and no global collapse would have ensued.

Alferd_Packer

25th July 2007, 04:25 AM

OK - so after the east wall on the 82nd floor buckled the east wall above was hanging only on the hat trusses up at the 106th floor that then redistributed that load to the core. Hat trusses are supposed to be able transfer loads as shear. But were the hat trusses strong enough? If so, the east wall above the 82nd floor would not have dropped down ... and no global collapse would have ensued.

What if the east core columns were damaged by the impact and fire also?

Belz...

25th July 2007, 08:08 AM

Thanks for your comments of various kinds.

However, the floors cannot transfer any real gravity loads from perimeter columns to the core columns.

Translation: "Wait a minute! I can't possibly counter those arguments. These are people that know their stuff. Better just ignore it and restate my original statements. Maybe it'll stick if I repeat it often enough."

T.A.M.

25th July 2007, 08:24 AM

Funny not one of these so called "engineers for truth" has written a paper, a scientific paper, proving their theories, and presented them to Ron Paul, or Kusinich, or even obama or hillary. Do you not think they, or even DEM members of congress would love to have evidence of the cover up...

TAM:)

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 08:29 AM

What if the east core columns were damaged by the impact and fire also?

Yes, what if.

Let's look first at the impact as shown on videos. The plane arrives and touches the south wall - on some videos there is a flash - and then during 0.2 seconds the plane slices through the south wall perimeter steel columns and the floors. No fires, explosions, no parts thrown backwards during 0.25 seconds.

About 30 steel perimeter columns are apparently cut at two locations each - top and bottom iwo alleged contact with the plane - and the perimeter column pieces are pushed into the building during this short time. The plane is undamaged. It disappears undamaged into the building. Afterwards we see a hole that is the shape of a plane. Not one piece of wall or plane drops down on the south side of WTC2.

Thus - the 30 steel perimeter columns and the floors did not resist the plane at all. They just gave way and were pushed into the tower. You get the impression that the south wall was made of paper. There is no real impact during 0.25 seconds.

Many persons believe all public media and amateur videos of the impact (sic) - total, about 20 or 30, are simple fakes - Hollywood style. I think so too! A plane cannot just slice through a wall with closely spaced steel columns and disappear. Some plane parts would bounce against the perimeter columns and be flown backwards.

I would have expected that the perimeter columns iwo the plane wings were just cut in one location and that the top and bottom parts were bent inwards, but no. All columns were cut in two locations with the bit between missing. If you fake the 'impact' it is easier to cut off the columns at two places each leaving a missing piece - a hole looking like a plane. To cut the column in only one location and then bend the two parts inward is more complicated.

Thus the plane was 100% intact after passing the south wall ... and then it apparently stopped inside the tower ... as there is no hole on the north side, where you would expect the plane to exit.

On some public videos you actually see the nose of the plane exit intact ... but on later edited versions of the same videos the nose has disappeared.

So the plane stops inside the tower. Or 95% of it. Some parts are seen to flow out on the other side but it is unclear what. Why did they flow out, when 95% of the other parts stopped inside?

Very strange impact to say the least.

When 30 south wall perimeter pillars are cut the south wall above does not move one jota. The reason is that the vertical load in the cut pillars are re-distributed to the intact perimeter columns in the south wall via the spandrels fitted at every floor level. Thus there were plenty of redundancy in the south wall - it survived with half the columns removed.

You ask about the east core columns. NIST has announced details what east core columns were damaged after the plane stopped inside the tower. How NIST can do that is not clear. Did they have a look? The east core columns could probably only be damaged by the left wing of the plane that had sliced through the south wall undamaged.

Anyway - after another 0.05 seconds there is an explosive fire in the tower - apparently the jetfuel has stopped and caught fire. And it is first now that fire and smoke exits through the hole in the south wall (and the east wall). But apparently no pieces of wreckage of any kind exits the south wall hole. If the east core columns had resisted any impact with the wings, you would expect some wing parts to bounce out through the south wall hole at this time, but no. Or through the east wall. Or the north wall!!

So the magic wings must either have sliced through the east core columns too or stopped prior to touching the east core columns.

The whole impact is paranormal or magic. It is not real. It is a fake. Quite obvious. You do not need to be an engineer with an M.Sc. from a reputable university to conclude that. I think it was manufactured by Hollywood.

Therefore it is interesting to analyse the global collapse that ensued. It is real but what caused it? CD?

Why not? If you can fake an impact, you can also arrange a real global collapse. But you need CD for that. The fire we see would never cause global collapse as outlined in earlier messages.

I can assure you that became very depressed for a while, when I concluded above. What kind of terrorists would do all that? Not 19 arabs! They are just patsies necessary to put the blame on.

Alferd_Packer

25th July 2007, 08:37 AM

Thus the plane was 100% intact after passing the south wall

Wow.

I'm stundied

Mr. Skinny

25th July 2007, 09:15 AM

Wow.

I'm stundied
Me too.

They must be teaching an entirely different engineering ciriculum than I received in the '70's, particularly the physics portion.

Dave Rogers

25th July 2007, 10:08 AM

Good that you agree that the floors are just hanging between the perimeter and core columns with help of their trusses and do not contribute one jota to the global strength of the tower. They are only there to provide fire division between the floors.

The floors are only there to provide fire division between the floors. Righty ho.

Stundied.

Dave

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 10:25 AM

Wow.

I'm stundied

I was stunned. A plane slicing through a wall of steel perimeter columns - like a knife cutting warm butter.

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 10:27 AM

The floors are only there to provide fire division between the floors. Righty ho.

Stundied.

Dave

Look at the connection between the floor/truss and the column spandrel. Stunning.

The Almond

25th July 2007, 10:40 AM

Reason being of course that it is irrelevant.

Actually, when someone addresses your points, takes the time to look up the references and provides a counter argument, it becomes relevant. It seems far more likely that you're simply uninterested in engaging in an engineering discussion.

When the east wall collapses locally at floor 82 for whatever reason,

The reason has been pointed out to you numerous times as it is central to the NIST collapse hypothesis.

only the east wall above will fall down due to the way the tower or actually the floors were designed - as clarified in my answer to all. Global collapse will not ensue.

Your answers contain nothing but opinion. And no one here is going to accept that in place of evidence and calculations.

GlennB

25th July 2007, 10:41 AM

The whole impact is paranormal or magic. It is not real. It is a fake. Quite obvious. You do not need to be an engineer with an M.Sc. from a reputable university to conclude that. I think it was manufactured by Hollywood.

Now you're just being weird.

Belz...

25th July 2007, 10:46 AM

I would have expected that the perimeter columns iwo the plane wings were just cut in one location and that the top and bottom parts were bent inwards, but no. All columns were cut in two locations with the bit between missing. If you fake the 'impact' it is easier to cut off the columns at two places each leaving a missing piece - a hole looking like a plane. To cut the column in only one location and then bend the two parts inward is more complicated.

You have no idea how these things work, do you ? You're really just working from your own "common sense" and gut feelings, right ?

Thus the plane was 100% intact after passing the south wall

Non sequitur.

I was stunned. A plane slicing through a wall of steel perimeter columns - like a knife cutting warm butter.

Considering the 767 was torn to twisted shreds by the impact, I'd say you're flat-out, completely, 100%, bat-crazy wrong.

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 01:24 PM

Considering the 767 was torn to twisted shreds by the impact, I'd say you're flat-out, completely, 100%, bat-crazy wrong.

You must be blind. Look again at all these videos. It takes only 0.2 seconds. You do not need to be an engineer with any certificate for that. Just common sense. The plane ... or whatever it is (why do you believe it is a 767?) ... disappears into the tower through the south wall. No twisted shreads anywhere. Magic. What an impact! The relevant perimeter columns are apparently each cut in two places - the intermediate column piece disappears (seen later). No bending of any column ends. Just plain cuts! The wall just opens up and swallows the plane ... or whatever it is. Plenty people suggest it is bad video trickery. I agree ... and nobody has proven the opposite. It seems NIST just accepts paranormal or magic impacts.

Actually all NIST observed 'facts' of damages are based on videos. No serious accident investigator analyze accidents based on films. You do a proper forensic examination of the real things. NIST missed that too.

T.A.M.

25th July 2007, 01:32 PM

Hokulele

25th July 2007, 01:39 PM

I thought I heard an argument from incredulity regarding a 767 penetrating the WTC. Is it time for the pieces of straw embedded in telephone poles links and pictures yet?

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 01:44 PM

Actually, when someone addresses your points, takes the time to look up the references and provides a counter argument, it becomes relevant. It seems far more likely that you're simply uninterested in engaging in an engineering discussion.

I try. Take, e.g. the floor connections to the columns in WTC2. It can only transmit horizontal, axial forces. It cannot transmit any bending. It cannot transmit any shear (except the small weight of furniture on the floor to the columns = negligible ). Therefore it cannot transmit any vertical gravity loads from a perimeter column to a core column as suggested by NIST. This is basic! Do you need more evidence? I expect som basic knowledge of participants in the discussion.

I have explained some other functions of the floors (wind pressure transfer, resist torsion, etc) and concludes that the main function was being a horizontal fire division - not a primary structural part. This is also quite basic. Do you need more evidence.

And then plenty of people query this without any real counter arguments. I am quite disappointed of the quality of the discussion here. Plenty of personal OT comments also! No style. Bad upbringing? Let's keep that outside a serious engineering discussion.

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 01:50 PM

Ummm...given they couldnt investigate the columns etc until after the collapse, how do you suggest they seperate the steel damaged, twisted, severed, by the collapse, versus that done by the impacts?

I think given the collapse made all comparisons of the steel physical damage before and after useless, video and PHOTOS are the best they had...

TAM:)

Simple! You sort all the parts of the wreckage including the perimeter columns. Evidently damages from an alleged impact cutting perimeter columns in two places differ completely from damages on perimeter columns due to an alleged gravity global collapse.

The Almond

25th July 2007, 02:11 PM

I try. Take, e.g. the floor connections to the columns in WTC2. It can only transmit horizontal, axial forces. It cannot transmit any bending.

It doesn't transmit bending, it causes it. Sagging on the floor truss creates an out of plane tensile force causing a positive moment on the beam.

It cannot transmit any shear (except the small weight of furniture on the floor to the columns = negligible ).

The weight of the floor to the columns is not negligible, no matter how much you want it to be. This is reality, deal with it.

Therefore it cannot transmit any vertical gravity loads from a perimeter column to a core column as suggested by NIST.

The hat truss transmitted the gravity loads. Why do you ignore this fact?

This is basic! Do you need more evidence? I expect som basic knowledge of participants in the discussion.

Newton's Bit and I are fully diplomaed engineers, and frankly, we don't spout your nonsense.

I have explained some other functions of the floors (wind pressure transfer, resist torsion, etc) and concludes that the main function was being a horizontal fire division - not a primary structural part.

That's ludicrous.

This is also quite basic. Do you need more evidence.

As I haven't gotten any to date, yes, I'm going to need more evidence.

And then plenty of people query this without any real counter arguments.

Feel free to ignore them in the same way that you ignore people with real counter arguments.

I am quite disappointed of the quality of the discussion here.

You are free to leave at any time.

Plenty of personal OT comments also! No style. Bad upbringing? Let's keep that outside a serious engineering discussion.
In my opinion, we haven't engaged in a serious engineering discussion.

Heiwa

25th July 2007, 11:30 PM

It doesn't transmit bending, it causes it. Sagging on the floor truss creates an out of plane tensile force causing a positive moment on the beam.

The weight of the floor to the columns is not negligible, no matter how much you want it to be. This is reality, deal with it.

The hat truss transmitted the gravity loads. Why do you ignore this fact?

Newton's Bit and I are fully diplomaed engineers, and frankly, we don't spout your nonsense.

That's ludicrous.

As I haven't gotten any to date, yes, I'm going to need more evidence.

Feel free to ignore them in the same way that you ignore people with real counter arguments.

You are free to leave at any time.

In my opinion, we haven't engaged in a serious engineering discussion.

You say "Sagging on the floor truss creates an out of plane tensile force causing a positive moment on the beam".

Actually it is the weight on the floor truss that creates a saggging bending moment at mid-distance between outer and core walls - tension in the bottom flange, compression in the concrete/plate sandwich you walk on. However this bending moment and its bending stresses are zero at the wall columns.

The weight on the floor 20 kgs/m² is of course negligible compared with the 12.5% of the total weight of the building carried by the outer wall and allegedly re-distributed from the outer wall to the core via the floor - that cannot transfer any bending between itself and the column!!

Sorry - the floors cannot redistribute any gravity loads from the wall to the core as alleged by NIST.

Corsair 115

26th July 2007, 02:29 AM

Not to put too fine a point on this, Corsair, but some RC aircraft can be flown by either human or autonomous control. They can be flown by human control and then switched to follow pre-planned waypoints sent from the ground control station. If it loses contact with the ground station, it can have an on-board program to cause it to fly to a waypoint within range of the station, or even auto-land itself. Neat, I didn't know that. I've always seen RC aircraft with the land-bound pilot thumbing the control levers.

These aircraft are still considered to be Remote Control aircraft, even when there is no human-in-the-loop. So your correction of Heiwa is not 100% accurate. :)I suppose it comes down to how strictly one wants to define "remote control." I've always thought and heard it in connection to a human controlling a device from a remote location, thus giving rise to the term. If the device is operating without human control, I can't really think of that as remote control.

I suppose it might be time to break out the dictionaries... :D

Belz...

26th July 2007, 05:44 AM

You must be blind. Look again at all these videos. It takes only 0.2 seconds. You do not need to be an engineer with any certificate for that. Just common sense.

What IS IT with truthers and common sense ? How can common sense possibly help you understand such a catastrophic, complex, non-common event ?

The plane ... or whatever it is (why do you believe it is a 767?) ... disappears into the tower through the south wall. No twisted shreads anywhere.

Anywhere ? Not even on the nearby rooftops ? Not even that engine that fell in the street ? Not even those human remains they found ? Not even the landing gear ? You must be blind.

No bending of any column ends. Just plain cuts!

Even so, why would you expect them to bend ?

The wall just opens up and swallows the plane ... or whatever it is.

You're either lying or incapable of interpreting videos. The plane punches through the facade. It's going hundreds of miles per hour. What exactly do you expect it to do ?

Plenty people suggest it is bad video trickery.

Why ? Because they can't fathom how high-speed collision works ?

I agree ...

Of course you do. You seem predisposed to believing that.

and nobody has proven the opposite.

Prove the opposite of what ? A crackpot, armchair conjecture from laypeople ?

It seems NIST just accepts paranormal or magic impacts.

Perhaps. Or, maybe, they're actual, professional experts that know what they're talking about and they know more about the physics involved than you ever will, making them far more likely to have the right answer.

Sorry - the floors cannot redistribute any gravity loads from the wall to the core as alleged by NIST.

And why not ? Please show this.

T.A.M.

26th July 2007, 06:15 AM

Simple! You sort all the parts of the wreckage including the perimeter columns. Evidently damages from an alleged impact cutting perimeter columns in two places differ completely from damages on perimeter columns due to an alleged gravity global collapse.

Really? Please, using your expertese in this field, explain to us how the columns that were damaged by impact plus collapse would differ from columns damaged by just the collapse alone.

If you cannot answer, please refrain from speculating on it?

TAM:)

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 06:49 AM

Really? Please, using your expertese in this field, explain to us how the columns that were damaged by impact plus collapse would differ from columns damaged by just the collapse alone.

If you cannot answer, please refrain from speculating on it?

TAM:)

I thought that was clear from previous observations? At impact sideways the perimeter steel column is allegedly cut or sheared off laterally in two locations by aluminium structure with the steel bit in between being removed inward. The steel column was not cut in one location only with the two ends being bent inward. The surfaces of the cut areas will provide more info how it took place, e.g. if it was a plane or whatever.

When the column collapses due to gravity the excess forces are in the longitudinal direction and the ruptured surfaces will appear completely different.

That is why forensic examination of the core columns was also very important. Did they break due to gravity axial collapse or were they cut off laterally by explosive devices of CD? The ruptured surfaces would clearly indicate which. There are some photos of ruptured core columns where the ruptured surfaces seem to have been subject to heat/cutting = CD.

T.A.M.

26th July 2007, 06:58 AM

T.A.M.

26th July 2007, 07:00 AM

The column "ruptures" that you have mentioned, they wouldnt happen to be the ones we see posted all the time with the welding torch diagonal cut, and the rescueworkers in the foreground, would it?

TAM:)

twinstead

26th July 2007, 07:13 AM

So it appears we have another arm-chair expert claiming to see something that all the real experts from around the world have studied, something taught in engineering schools world-wide, and is responsible for changes in building codes simply missed.

God bless the YouTube generation.

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 08:50 AM

really, the "ruptured surfaces" will look COMPLETELY different. How do you know this? Have you examined steel that was initially cut by impact, but then was also subject to collapse, and compare it to steel that wasnt cut, but also subject to the same collapse? I didn't know you were involved in building collapse investigation? Is this on the side, when you are not engineering...lol

TAM:)

How do I know this? When plates in ships ruptures we study, apart from the material itself, the ruptured surfaces to find out more. Ruptures due to shear differs from those due to pull, etc. You can actually see in what direction the plate ruptured. Steel samples have been taken from ruptured plates of a certain ship (see my web page) to establish why it ruptured. Some people think the rupture was caused by explosives! Then not only the surface is of interest but also the material itself - it changes due to heat and the explosive rupture, etc. The same methods are used in steel building collapse analysis.

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 09:16 AM

And why not ? Please show this.

You have not read message #288? Anyway - the floor truss could only transmit the small weight on and of the truss itself to the columns. No substantial gravity load in a perimeter column can be transmitted through the truss to the core column as shear. The truss connections to the column are too weak and the truss itself lacks capability to transfer big shear loads.

Thus gravity load redistribution between perimeter columns is only via the spandrels and that worked nice around the hole in the south wall.

The four functions of the floor were completely different (see earlier message). After the initial damages to WTC2 the structure stood due to its redundancy. Afterwards there was fire. I doubt very much that the fire ruptured any structure further (there is no evidence for that) and that only minor deformations took place. In that case the floor - even if sagged - could still carry out the four functions it was supposed to do ... and no collapse of any kind would ensue.

The major function of the floor was to support the columns sideways. There is no evidence that the heated floors failed to do that. The perimeter was always cooled by fresh air all around - most floor/column connections around the perimeter was intact after impact and the heat could not cause further damage. The spandrels would re-distribute the gravity load. No chance that global collapse could then ensue.

The NIST report is full of guess work and unproven estimates of various parameters, e.g. exaggerated temperatures 30-40 minutes after first impact, and thus very unreliable. Stupid suggestions that the steel would melt are encouraged, etc. All assumptions seem to be arranged to make the global collapse due to heat a possibility that could ensue.

The fire was only due to furniture, office equipment and decorations burning. The jet fuel burnt at once in the fire ball or poured down to the street. So no high temperatures could ensue. And no global collapse could ensue.

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 09:19 AM

Dave Rogers

26th July 2007, 09:27 AM

The major function of the floor was to support the columns sideways. There is no evidence that the heated floors failed to do that.

There is ample and highly compelling evidence that the floors not only failed to support the columns sideways, but that they actually exerted a lateral force on the columns. Look for some photos of the inward bowing of the exterior columns, then tell me that those columns are adequately laterally supported.

Dave

AZCat

26th July 2007, 09:49 AM

You say "Sagging on the floor truss creates an out of plane tensile force causing a positive moment on the beam".

Actually it is the weight on the floor truss that creates a saggging bending moment at mid-distance between outer and core walls - tension in the bottom flange, compression in the concrete/plate sandwich you walk on. However this bending moment and its bending stresses are zero at the wall columns.

The weight on the floor 20 kgs/m² is of course negligible compared with the 12.5% of the total weight of the building carried by the outer wall and allegedly re-distributed from the outer wall to the core via the floor - that cannot transfer any bending between itself and the column!!

Sorry - the floors cannot redistribute any gravity loads from the wall to the core as alleged by NIST.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but when the floor trusses begin sagging, doesn't the sag itself make the straight-line distance between the end points of the truss shorter because of the curve of the sag since the length of the truss does not change? This would create a non-axial load on the columns, right?

Gravy

26th July 2007, 09:59 AM

Heiwa, you shouldn't need to be told this, but explosives leave distinctive blast patterns, fragmentation or cut patterns, residue, remains of initating devices, and sonic and seismic signatures, absolutely none of which were detected anywhere, at any attack scene, on 9/11.

Your entire argument is one from ignorance. You refuse to even read the NIST report (Um, hello? The planes didn't enter the towers llke a knife through butter and did not leave cookie-cutter holes. I suggest you look into the outboard wing and vertical stabilizer impacts. NIST covers all this in great detail.

Stop arguing from ignorance. Get informed. You are making an absolute fool of yourself.

NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf)

NIST NCSTAR 1-1 Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-1index.htm)

NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the WTC Towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm)

NIST NCSTAR 1-3 Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm)

NIST NCSTAR 1-4 Active Fire Protection Systems (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-4index.htm)

NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm)

NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm)

NIST NCSTAR 1-7 Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-7index.htm)

NIST NCSTAR 1-8 The Emergency Response Operations (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-8index.htm)

NIST WTC 7 Interim Report (2004) – Go (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf)

The FEMA World Trade Center Building Performance Assessments – Go (http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/open.htm)

The ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report – Go (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf)

T.A.M.

26th July 2007, 10:01 AM

There is ample and highly compelling evidence that the floors not only failed to support the columns sideways, but that they actually exerted a lateral force on the columns. Look for some photos of the inward bowing of the exterior columns, then tell me that those columns are adequately laterally supported.

Dave

Thank you for explaining, in part, what I was trying to convey. My point was that there had to been any number of forces acting on the columns just prior to and during collapse. TO assume that the only significant force acting on the columns during this time was vertical is incorrect. As a result, unless you know all the forces acting on the steel during collapse, and can differentiate them from a piece of steel that only had impact damage, no collapse damage, then it would be useless to try and seperate the columns into those damaged "only by impact" and those "only by collapse".

TAM:)

Belz...

26th July 2007, 10:03 AM

I thought that was clear from previous observations? At impact sideways the perimeter steel column is allegedly cut or sheared off laterally in two locations by aluminium structure with the steel bit in between being removed inward. The steel column was not cut in one location only with the two ends being bent inward. The surfaces of the cut areas will provide more info how it took place, e.g. if it was a plane or whatever.

When the column collapses due to gravity the excess forces are in the longitudinal direction and the ruptured surfaces will appear completely different.

That is why forensic examination of the core columns was also very important. Did they break due to gravity axial collapse or were they cut off laterally by explosive devices of CD? The ruptured surfaces would clearly indicate which. There are some photos of ruptured core columns where the ruptured surfaces seem to have been subject to heat/cutting = CD.

Yeah, yeah.

You know what makes MY blood boil ? The theory of gravity.

Why ? If there was a CONSTANT acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 at the surface of the Earth, you'd be SQUASHED into pulp by this force. Think about it. Nonsense.

Dave Rogers

26th July 2007, 10:06 AM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but when the floor trusses begin sagging, doesn't the sag itself make the straight-line distance between the end points of the truss shorter because of the curve of the sag since the length of the truss does not change? This would create a non-axial load on the columns, right?

Which, of course, would result in the inward bowing of the perimeter columns that was actually observed just prior to the collapse.

I think Heiwa is assuming that there were only vertical forces present, in which case I can imagine that the collapse would be difficult to explain. However, the real world is rather more three-dimensional than that.

Dave

ETA: I think TAM just raised the same point. Heiwa, do you realise that there were forces involved that were not vertical, and that these alone may have been capable of causing collapse?

Gravy

26th July 2007, 10:11 AM

You have not read message #288? Anyway - the floor truss could only transmit the small weight on and of the truss itself to the columns. No substantial gravity load in a perimeter column can be transmitted through the truss to the core column as shear. The truss connections to the column are too weak and the truss itself lacks capability to transfer big shear loads.Had you read the NIST report, you would know that this work was done via the hat truss.

Why are you wasting everyone's time with your completely uninformed opinions?

The NIST report is full of guess work and unproven estimates of various parameters, e.g. exaggerated temperatures 30-40 minutes after first impact, and thus very unreliable. And we should take your word for this? Show us.

Stupid suggestions that the steel would melt are encouraged, etc. 9/11 deniers are the ONLY ONES making those assumptions. Clear enough?

The fire was only due to furniture, office equipment and decorations burning.Of course, Heiwa. An office fire can't buckle large insulated columns. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnstobu)

You really know your stuff.

The jet fuel burnt at once in the fire ball or poured down to the street. So no high temperatures could ensue. And no global collapse could ensue.Plan on getting anything right today? Plan on reading the documents you pretend to critique? Plan on supporting your claims...ever?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a8c759c2ec4.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a8c86cc3371.jpg

Belz...

26th July 2007, 10:19 AM

You have not read message #288?

Yeah. I don't see any formal proof.

Anyway - the floor truss could only transmit the small weight on and of the truss itself to the columns. No substantial gravity load in a perimeter column can be transmitted through the truss to the core column as shear.

So your contention is that the floors had no structural component whatsoever ???

Gravy

26th July 2007, 10:21 AM

Which, of course, would result in the inward bowing of the perimeter columns that was actually observed just prior to the collapse.Actually, inward bowing of the south tower's east face was observed within 18 minutes of flight 175's impact.

More reports of bowing, "glowing red," and fears of imminent collapse:

Firefighter Brendan Lowrey: "We started walking south to the command center when a Police Officer stopped us and said, "hold up, guys. I have helicopters --" he was on the cell phone "--on the cell phone here." And he says, "when this one comes down, it's coming right for us." Meaning coming up West Street.

NYPD Aviation Units: Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."

Seconds later, another pilot reported: "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building." Source (http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_rescueplan.html)

10:20 NYPD – Aviation 14 states the WTC 1 is leaning. (NYPD, McKinsey & Company) NIST NCSTAR 1-8, p. 227

Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the pending collapse of the building,'' said Sivaraj Shyam- Sunder, who heads the institute, at a press briefing in New York. "Any time that information could have been communicated faster to the emergency responders in the buildings, it would have helped save lives."

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said. Source (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=top_world_news)

AZCat

26th July 2007, 10:23 AM

Which, of course, would result in the inward bowing of the perimeter columns that was actually observed just prior to the collapse.

I think Heiwa is assuming that there were only vertical forces present, in which case I can imagine that the collapse would be difficult to explain. However, the real world is rather more three-dimensional than that.

Dave

ETA: I think TAM just raised the same point. Heiwa, do you realise that there were forces involved that were not vertical, and that these alone may have been capable of causing collapse?

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming.

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 11:16 AM

Plan on getting anything right today? Plan on reading the documents you pretend to critique? Plan on supporting your claims...ever?

The NIST reports are full of nonsense. Thanks for the examples. So 30 tons of jetfuel arrives at abt 500 mph and slices through the WTC2 south wall during 0.2 seconds - nothing happens ... and then the jetfuel stops inside the tower!! Magic! Paranormal. Some scrap continues forward ... but the jetfuel stops. And then there is this magic, paranormal ball of fire.

As you gentlefolk attending JREF forum already should be aware of, I do not believe the 0.2 second video show of the plane slicing through the south wall of WTC2 is real. It is amateur Photo-shop animation (+ 10 seconds of something approaching the south wall prior that).

What does it mean?

A. That no 30 tons of jetfuel arrived/sliced through the south wall of WTC2 at 500 mph!

B. That the fire ball we see on the videos of WTC2 is not caused by subject jetfuel!!

I have to admit that I got quite depressed and unhappy when concluding B. It would have been easier to accept the magic, paranormal show and forget about it. It seems many NIST 'experts' do the same in various ways.

Any comments? But please, no insults, etc. I am quite a nice and extremely happy guy.

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 11:38 AM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but when the floor trusses begin sagging, doesn't the sag itself make the straight-line distance between the end points of the truss shorter because of the curve of the sag since the length of the truss does not change? This would create a non-axial load on the columns, right?

The structural functions of the floors are described in my message #263. Apart from that the floor provided a horizontal fire division between the floors. The weight on/of that floor is small. When/if it sags due to heat it will produce a small axial force on the columns as the connection floor/columns is intact. But not enough to pull the perimeter columns inward. The latter are much stronger than that carrying the whole load of the section above. They are also interconnected by the spandrels. And they are not heated up to any extent.

Belz...

26th July 2007, 01:09 PM

The NIST reports are full of nonsense.

Like what ?

What are your qualifications that allow you to dismiss the work of so many knowledgeable people ?

So 30 tons of jetfuel arrives at abt 500 mph and slices through the WTC2 south wall during 0.2 seconds - nothing happens ... and then the jetfuel stops inside the tower!! Magic!

Not magic...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608046a8d2f10b671.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7279)

Just burning straw.

Paranormal. Some scrap continues forward ... but the jetfuel stops.

Who said it stopped ? Didn't you see the giant fireball ?

As you gentlefolk attending JREF forum already should be aware of, I do not believe the 0.2 second video show of the plane slicing through the south wall of WTC2 is real.

Of course you don't. If you did, it would demolish your theories.

Of course, that's just you ignoring the THOUSANDS of people who saw that impact.

It is amateur Photo-shop animation

You couldn't even begin to tell me how someone could photoshop something like this LIVE.

B. That the fire ball we see on the videos of WTC2 is not caused by subject jetfuel!!

False dichotomy. Your lack of imagination has no effect on reality.

I have to admit that I got quite depressed and unhappy when concluding B. It would have been easier to accept the magic, paranormal show and forget about it.

I don't believe in magic. I believe that jet fuel burns explosively. Otherwise they wouldn't use it as jet fuel.

Trifikas

26th July 2007, 01:15 PM

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 01:37 PM

Out of my own curiousity, when the Floor truss sags (and I'm probably going to botch the wording of this), Since it's mass is centered away from the columns, does it have the mechanical advantage of acting like a lever, with the fulcrum and resistance at the column and it's own mass being the effort? Or is it a moot point, since the sagging truss is still connected at both sides, the forces balance out?

If it has a mechanical advantage, Does it become greater or lesser as it sags more and more?

It becomes less! The weight on top of the floor (the furniture & Co) sagging it is burning and goes up in smoke and out of the windows. And the floor is more like a net ... just hanging on the columns. That's why it is sagging.

Heiwa

26th July 2007, 01:42 PM

I don't believe in magic. I believe that jet fuel burns explosively. Otherwise they wouldn't use it as jet fuel.

OK - you order 30 tons jetfuel to heat your house and you intend to fill it in the tank in your garage.

The jetfuel arrives at 500 mph through your garage door within 0.2 seconds. Please advise how you intend to fill your tank in that time.

Trifikas

26th July 2007, 01:53 PM

It becomes less! The weight on top of the floor (the furniture & Co) sagging it is burning and goes up in smoke and out of the windows. And the floor is more like a net ... just hanging on the columns. That's why it is sagging.

Well, the mass becomes less as it burns away, but I was really wondering if the mechanical advantage (if there is one) would increase or decrease. Even a net, if you strung it up between two poles, if you pushed on it would pull the poles inward. The higher up on the poles the net is attached, the easier it is to bend the poles by pushing the net. So there has to be some kind of mechanical advantage somewhere in the example, and by extention somewhere in the towers.

Meh, like I said, just curious.

AZCat

26th July 2007, 02:09 PM

The structural functions of the floors are described in my message #263. Apart from that the floor provided a horizontal fire division between the floors. The weight on/of that floor is small. When/if it sags due to heat it will produce a small axial force on the columns as the connection floor/columns is intact. But not enough to pull the perimeter columns inward. The latter are much stronger than that carrying the whole load of the section above. They are also interconnected by the spandrels. And they are not heated up to any extent.

No you misunderstand. The sagging floors produce a transverse load on the columns because of the sagging, along with the axial load from the weight.

JimBenArm

26th July 2007, 02:31 PM

Wouldn't the weight of, say, a big honkin' airplane sitting on top of the floor also contribute a bit to the sagging and pulling of the columns? Maybe?

AZCat

26th July 2007, 02:40 PM

Wouldn't the weight of, say, a big honkin' airplane sitting on top of the floor also contribute a bit to the sagging and pulling of the columns? Maybe?

A couple of people looked at that in another thread (I think it was this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81444) but I'm not sure) and IIRC the result was ~25 lbs/sqft max extra weight.

The Almond

26th July 2007, 03:30 PM

Well, the mass becomes less as it burns away, but I was really wondering if the mechanical advantage (if there is one) would increase or decrease. Even a net, if you strung it up between two poles, if you pushed on it would pull the poles inward. The higher up on the poles the net is attached, the easier it is to bend the poles by pushing the net. So there has to be some kind of mechanical advantage somewhere in the example, and by extention somewhere in the towers.

Meh, like I said, just curious.

To answer your question, mechanical advantage (in the engineering sense) usually refers to moving parts. Structural engineers don't usually discuss things in terms of mechanical advantage.

The word you're looking for is torque, and yes, your string between two poles does exert a torque on the pole's connection to the ground.

Let's imagine a string tied to a rock that's suspended between two poles. Said rock causes the poles to make a 30 degree positive angle with the horizontal (assuming that counterclockwise is positive). Because the system is not moving, we know that the sum of forces in the Y direction is zero by Newton's first law. Thus we know that:

The weight of the rock = Y component of the force in the first string + Y component of the force in the second string.

The y component of the force in the string is the tension of the string times the Sine of the horizontal angle. Thus the equation becomes

W = T*Sin(30) + T*Sin(30)

Ok, next step is to follow the string to its connection with the pole, and follow the pole into the ground. I'm going to assume that the pole sticks into the ground like a nail sticks into wood. That means that any force transferred to the pole will be carried into the ground.

The string is pulling on the pole in two ways. The X component creates a moment couple with the ground as well as an X reaction with the ground that is equal and opposite to the string X force (Newton's 3rd law). The Y component increases the total gravity load on the pole.

The torque created by the string and the ground can be described in this way:
Torque = [X component of the string] * [Distance between the string and the ground]

Since we know the string makes a 30 degree angle with the horizontal, we know the X component of the string is T*cos(30). Thus, the equation becomes:
Torque = T*cos(30)*Distance from ground

So, to answer your question, I would suggest a spreadsheet with columns labeled as such:
Weight of Stone Angle with Horizontal Distance from Ground Tension in String X Component Torque

You can choose any values you want for weight of the stone, angle with the horizontal and distance from ground. The other three values will calculate based on those dependent variables.

What you will see is that as your angle decreases your torque will increase. That means that for extremely small angles, the torque is very high.

To relate this to the twin towers, the moment exerted on the poles is greatest when the floors sag at low angles. This is coupled with the out of plane loading exerted by the Y component force. When the columns bend, the gravity component no longer exists in the same plane as the column, creating further moments.

I would like to dedicate this lengthy response to my statics teacher Dr. E. Harry Law. Without his social life destroying marathon homework sets, this answer would not have been possible.

Corsair 115

26th July 2007, 07:02 PM

As you gentlefolk attending JREF forum already should be aware of, I do not believe the 0.2 second video show of the plane slicing through the south wall of WTC2 is real. It is amateur Photo-shop animation (+ 10 seconds of something approaching the south wall prior that).Ah, excellent, another person forwarding the "the videos are fake, special effects shots!" line of thinking.

Let me break out my handy checklist of special effects related questions to see if you actually have any understanding of the history and techniques involved in special effects and if you have any eye for detecting them.

To determine your knowledge of effects techniques and history:

What's stop-motion animation? What's front screen projection? What's rear screen projection? What's an optical printer? How does the use of an optical printer compare to how today's effects are done? How does the foreground miniature effect work? What's a matte painting? What's a travelling matte? What did the development of the motion-controlled camera mean to special effects work?

To determine your eye for detecting a special effects shot:

In the movie Aliens, there's a scene in which the character of Ripley demonstrates her proficiency in using the powerloader. The vehicle is a full-size, on-set effect. Watch how it moves; do you notice anything odd about the way it moves, and if so, what? There's also a shot with another powerloader in the background; can you describe what kind of effect was used to create it? If you have a good eye for spotting special effects, answering the foregoing questions should be fairly easy.

Belz...

27th July 2007, 05:23 AM

OK - you order 30 tons jetfuel to heat your house and you intend to fill it in the tank in your garage.

The jetfuel arrives at 500 mph through your garage door within 0.2 seconds. Please advise how you intend to fill your tank in that time.

That made no sense, whatsoever. Please make sense.

Belz...

27th July 2007, 05:24 AM

What's stop-motion animation?

I can say it's wonderful. Wonderful, that's what it is.

Undesired Walrus

27th July 2007, 05:27 AM

Is the guy you are debating here my guy?

T.A.M.

27th July 2007, 05:37 AM

The NIST reports are full of nonsense. Thanks for the examples. So 30 tons of jetfuel arrives at abt 500 mph and slices through the WTC2 south wall during 0.2 seconds - nothing happens ... and then the jetfuel stops inside the tower!! Magic! Paranormal. Some scrap continues forward ... but the jetfuel stops. And then there is this magic, paranormal ball of fire.

As you gentlefolk attending JREF forum already should be aware of, I do not believe the 0.2 second video show of the plane slicing through the south wall of WTC2 is real. It is amateur Photo-shop animation (+ 10 seconds of something approaching the south wall prior that).

What does it mean?

A. That no 30 tons of jetfuel arrived/sliced through the south wall of WTC2 at 500 mph!

B. That the fire ball we see on the videos of WTC2 is not caused by subject jetfuel!!

I have to admit that I got quite depressed and unhappy when concluding B. It would have been easier to accept the magic, paranormal show and forget about it. It seems many NIST 'experts' do the same in various ways.

Any comments? But please, no insults, etc. I am quite a nice and extremely happy guy.

Well even though you, being a god of intellect, have so easily insulted a large group of distinguished PhDs in engineering, physics, etc, by calling their work nonsense, and full of "paranormal", we here will try to refrain from sinking to that level.

As well, you have also insulted the distinguished scientists at Purdue, calling their simulation "amateur". Nice happy guy, you should watch your mouth, as it does not seem to want to get in sync with your alleged disposition.

It is funny, given the expert in everything you claim to be, that you have yet to post any scientific data or calculations to prove that NIST was wrong, or PURDUE was wrong in any way (cue the standard "it defies the laws of physics" line, once again with no proof).

Come on Heiwa, with your superior training to Dr. Lew etal, with your clearly better education than the Purdue scientists, you should be able to dazzle and convert us over with your scientific posits in opposition to NISTs and Purdues. I am all ears...blow me away.

TAM:)

Gravy

27th July 2007, 05:40 AM

Heiwa

27th July 2007, 06:25 AM

Well even though you, being a god of intellect, have so easily insulted a large group of distinguished PhDs in engineering, physics, etc, by calling their work nonsense, and full of "paranormal", we here will try to refrain from sinking to that level.

As well, you have also insulted the distinguished scientists at Purdue, calling their simulation "amateur". Nice happy guy, you should watch your mouth, as it does not seem to want to get in sync with your alleged disposition.

It is funny, given the expert in everything you claim to be, that you have yet to post any scientific data or calculations to prove that NIST was wrong, or PURDUE was wrong in any way (cue the standard "it defies the laws of physics" line, once again with no proof).

Come on Heiwa, with your superior training to Dr. Lew etal, with your clearly better education than the Purdue scientists, you should be able to dazzle and convert us over with your scientific posits in opposition to NISTs and Purdues. I am all ears...blow me away.

TAM:)

OK - I have seen the Purdue simulation on the Internet. It does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

Re scientific data I thought I had shown several times that the floors cannot redistribute gravity load in a perimeter column to the core as suggested by NIST. So the core carries gravity load 100% independently from the perimeter. The only function of the floors are to support the columns and to transfer lateral wind loads, etc.

Actually the 360+ perimeter columns are so well interconnected by their spandrels at every floor level so they do not have to redistribute any gravity loads to the core at any time.

So when you remove 30+ perimeter columns in the south wall the gravity load of the upper south wall is redistributed to the intact columns via the spandrels. The WTC2 stands.

Same when you remove all 80+ perimeter columns on the east wall of WTC2. The gravity load on the east wall perimeter columns are redistributed to the north, west ... and what remains of the south wall. No local collapse of the perimeter walls around floor 82 should ensue. The hat trusses also help. The WTC2 should stand.

And if local collapse of all four perimeter walls at floor 82 should ensue, the core would never collapse. It would remain, because, as I have shown several times, no gravity loads can be transmitted via the floors and very little via the hat trusses. The core can never be overloaded due to local buckling of the east perimeter wall.

And the whole global collapse is unreal! Within a fraction of a second the upper part tilts 7° to the east and NIST cannot explain that.

So it is suggested that CD caused the collapse. The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

CHF

27th July 2007, 06:31 AM

The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

Or maybe you could prove that it did. Has that idea ever crossed your mind?

You can start to talking to a demoltion pro.

twinstead

27th July 2007, 06:50 AM

twinstead

27th July 2007, 06:58 AM

OK - I have seen the Purdue simulation on the Internet. It does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

The Purdue simulation says the jet fuel stopped inside the building? Can you tell me where you saw that?

Where exactly do you think that huge fireball came from? Could it perhaps have been jet fuel NOT stopping in the building? Jet fuel went EVERYWHERE, outside the building in a fireball, down the elevator shafts, everywhere.

The Purdue simulation makes a lot of sense. But I'm no expert. If you think you could have done better, I'm sure those Purdue folks would love to hear from you.

T.A.M.

27th July 2007, 08:31 AM

So it is suggested that CD caused the collapse. The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

I have seen no proof or evidence that makes the use of explosives or CD remotely likely.

So with that said, if I want to suggest to NIST that leprachauns did it, or Bigfoot did it, or High Energy Beams from Outer Space did it, should they also spend tax payer dollars and their valuable time eliminating these possibilities.

Don't answer, it is rhetorical, as of course NIST should not waste more tax payer money or their valuable time proving false, rediculous theories like leprachauns, energy beams, or Controlled Demolition.

TAM:)

Belz...

27th July 2007, 10:11 AM

OK - I have seen the Purdue simulation on the Internet. It does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

Yeah, we usually don't need to explain nonsensical things that didn't happen.

Didn't you see the huge fireball ?

Re scientific data I thought I had shown several times that the floors cannot redistribute gravity load in a perimeter column to the core as suggested by NIST.

Claims are not evidence.

Actually the 360+ perimeter columns are so well interconnected by their spandrels at every floor level so they do not have to redistribute any gravity loads to the core at any time.

Evidence, please.

So when you remove 30+ perimeter columns in the south wall the gravity load of the upper south wall is redistributed to the intact columns via the spandrels. The WTC2 stands.

Yeah. Then there's the fire.

And if local collapse of all four perimeter walls at floor 82 should ensue, the core would never collapse.

And it didn't.

Why are you continuing the battle your army of strawmen ? Is it more comfortable this way ?

And the whole global collapse is unreal! Within a fraction of a second the upper part tilts 7° to the east and NIST cannot explain that.

Don't they ?

It tilts because a part of the structure fails first. Phew! That was hard.

So it is suggested that CD caused the collapse. The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse. It is part of a complete investigation and analysis.

Yeah, sure. NIST should prove a negative.

Heiwa

27th July 2007, 10:40 AM

Heiwa perhaps you should answer the general questions about what qualifies you to call the people at Purdue amateurs, and basically call all the eminent engineers and physicists who worked on the NIST report idiots.

Not as bad, but par for the course for people of your ilk, you are actually implying that the couple degreed engineers on this very forum have no idea what they are talking about.

You'd think a person of your genius would actually have no problems providing complete and compelling calculations that prove your claims.

?? I have not called any Purdue people amateurs. I only wondered about their simulation about jetfuel arriving at 500 mph, etc.

Same with the NIST people. I don't know if they are eminent. I only notice a lot of nonsense and errors in their report that we discuss, e.g. details (guesses) of high temperatures inside a tower and qrazy ideas that floors redistribute gravity forces. They seem wildy enthusiastic to prove something I do not believe in. I think their basic assumptions are wrong and their conclusion ... global collapse ensues.

Heiwa

27th July 2007, 10:58 AM

It tilts because a part of the structure fails first. Phew! That was hard.

Yeah, sure. NIST should prove a negative.

If the perimeter columns fail locally and the core cannot fail, then the tower can evidently not be tilting 7° east.

Once upon a time I was a very active (and much appreciated) marine accident investigator and investigated >100 accidents. Many people then suggested one cause of accident and I, the poor accident investigator, had to prove another cause, i.e. I had to prove a negative. Example - something was broken on a ship or it had had simply sunk. The owner suggested cause bad weather and provided a lot of evidence - log book extracts and testimonies of amazingly severe weather, testimonies how perfect the broken part was before the incident, engineering studies by eminent persons that only bad weather could have caused the damage, etc., etc. After studying all this info I often concluded it was BS. The real cause was often owner negligence, bad maintenance, pure fraud, etc. So I apply this system to 9/11. Qui bono?
There are too many unexplained, magic, paranormal events around 9/11 to simply blame OBL + 19 arabs. I do not buy it. But a lot of ignorant people buy it. They believe anything. So NIST did a poor job.

Heiwa

27th July 2007, 11:05 AM

The Purdue simulation says the jet fuel stopped inside the building? Can you tell me where you saw that?

I didn't say that. I say the Purdue simulation does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

twinstead

27th July 2007, 11:07 AM

?? I have not called any Purdue people amateurs. I only wondered about their simulation about jetfuel arriving at 500 mph, etc.

Same with the NIST people. I don't know if they are eminent. I only notice a lot of nonsense and errors in their report that we discuss, e.g. details (guesses) of high temperatures inside a tower and qrazy ideas that floors redistribute gravity forces. They seem wildy enthusiastic to prove something I do not believe in. I think their basic assumptions are wrong and their conclusion ... global collapse ensues.

My problem is then what are your qualifications to challenge the NIST people? I'm not an expert, but the experts on this forum have a problem with your analysis. They don't agree. NIST doesn't agree. Basically the body of the world's structural engineers don't agree.

I rely on experts in this situation because I have no idea what the dynamics were that day. Why exactly should I, as a non-expert, listen to you?

twinstead

27th July 2007, 11:09 AM

I didn't say that. I say the Purdue simulation does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

So you think that the fuel did indeed stop inside the building, but Purdue didn't mention that unusual fact?

I submit that the jet fuel DIDN'T stop inside the building, therefore it is unreasonable to suggest that Purdue should have explained it. You disagree, show me what leads you to believe it 'stopped inside the building'. For example, what then constitutes the fireball?

sackett

27th July 2007, 11:14 AM

...The NIST should therefore show that CD didn't cause the collapse....

A masterful argument, skeptics. Heiseed's got you there.

The NIST should also prove that the sparrow didn't shoot Cock Robin. "With my little bow and arrow" indeed! I call for an independent investigation at once!

Belz...

27th July 2007, 01:03 PM

If the perimeter columns fail locally and the core cannot fail, then the tower can evidently not be tilting 7° east.

I didn't say that the core was made out of Adamantium. I said ithe core itself didn't fail, not until a few seconds after the collapse, that is.

Once upon a time I was a very active (and much appreciated) marine accident investigator and investigated >100 accidents. Many people then suggested one cause of accident and I, the poor accident investigator, had to prove another cause, i.e. I had to prove a negative.

That's not what "proving a negative" means. Please know the definition of terms before you make yourself look silly.

There are too many unexplained, magic, paranormal events around 9/11 to simply blame OBL + 19 arabs.

What's unexplained ? What magic ? What paranormal ?

What's wrong with Arabs ?

I do not buy it. But a lot of ignorant people buy it. They believe anything. So NIST did a poor job.

That's a huge argument from incredulity, and your posts so far demonstrate that the set of ignorant people includes you.

I say the Purdue simulation does not explain why the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building.

THE FUEL DIDN'T STOP INSIDE THE BUILDING. THERE IS NO NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT.

twinstead

27th July 2007, 01:09 PM

I do not buy it. But a lot of ignorant people buy it. They believe anything. So NIST did a poor jobWow. Are you implying that only ignorant people buy the NIST report? By extension, you are implying that anybody who buys the report is ignorant, which would be everybody from the scientists and engineers who wrote it, to the engineering professors who use it as classroom study throughout the world.

Please don't start with the CT 'figured it all out, and all the ignorant sheep missed it!' arrogance; it makes a discussion difficult. You are going to have to deal with the fact there are people as smart or smarter than you who 'buy' the NIST report.

Corsair 115

27th July 2007, 01:10 PM

I can say it's wonderful. Wonderful, that's what it is.It certainly ruled the roost in terms of special effects for a long time, and was definitely an art form. If a way could have been found earlier to cure the strobing issue, it might have managed an even longer stay at the top.

Heiwa

28th July 2007, 04:29 AM

So you think that the fuel did indeed stop inside the building, but Purdue didn't mention that unusual fact?

I submit that the jet fuel DIDN'T stop inside the building, therefore it is unreasonable to suggest that Purdue should have explained it. You disagree, show me what leads you to believe it 'stopped inside the building'. For example, what then constitutes the fireball?

As shown in message #305 quoting NIST the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building. Some evaporated and caused fire balls in various directions clearly seen, some flowed down through the elevator shafts, some continued to burn on the floors, etc. No jetfuel flew out as a normal person would expect.

Everywhere you look at alleged 'facts' of 9/11 you find inconsistencies. Actually it stinks everywhere. At WTC1,2,7, at Pentagon, at Shanksville. That's why we discuss a conspiracy of some kind. Some Ph.D experts on this forum appear to lack this sense of smell.

To me it seems that whatever caused the fire balls and fire in WTC2 did not arrive at 500 mph and stopped within 240 feet. So if it didn't arrive at 500 mph it must have been stored in the building beforehand! The building was prepared for it ... and later destruction (that we discuss)! The 'plane' seen slicing through the south wall in 0.2 sec on various videos without being damaged seems unreal. It should have started to disintegrate within 0.05 sec! The creator of the video didn't know how to make a proper job.

So I cannot connect this 'plane' with the big smoke/small fire balls exiting the south wall a fraction of a second later. They also seem unreal. Conclusion? An illusion. All witnesses were deceived. Some Ph.D experts on this forum appear also not understanding that witnesses can be decieved. They always refer to these witnesses/testimonies as some sort of established truth or facts. And then FBI, FEMA, NIST, Purdue, etc. try to prove that the illusion was true.

Heiwa

28th July 2007, 05:40 AM

Here are some further observations about CD:

http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

GlennB

28th July 2007, 06:36 AM

....
So I cannot connect this 'plane' with the big smoke/small fire balls exiting the south wall a fraction of a second later. They also seem unreal. Conclusion? An illusion......

Well, that film of Gandlalf and friends running away from the Balrog seemed real enough to me.
Conclusion?
Balrogs exist. (And I'm damn well going to check for one lurking under the bed tonight)

twinstead

28th July 2007, 09:21 AM

As shown in message #305 quoting NIST the jetfuel arriving at 500 mph stopped inside the building. Some evaporated and caused fire balls in various directions clearly seen, some flowed down through the elevator shafts, some continued to burn on the floors, etc. No jetfuel flew out as a normal person would expect.

Everywhere you look at alleged 'facts' of 9/11 you find inconsistencies. Actually it stinks everywhere. At WTC1,2,7, at Pentagon, at Shanksville. That's why we discuss a conspiracy of some kind. Some Ph.D experts on this forum appear to lack this sense of smell.

To me it seems that whatever caused the fire balls and fire in WTC2 did not arrive at 500 mph and stopped within 240 feet. So if it didn't arrive at 500 mph it must have been stored in the building beforehand! The building was prepared for it ... and later destruction (that we discuss)! The 'plane' seen slicing through the south wall in 0.2 sec on various videos without being damaged seems unreal. It should have started to disintegrate within 0.05 sec! The creator of the video didn't know how to make a proper job.

So I cannot connect this 'plane' with the big smoke/small fire balls exiting the south wall a fraction of a second later. They also seem unreal. Conclusion? An illusion. All witnesses were deceived. Some Ph.D experts on this forum appear also not understanding that witnesses can be decieved. They always refer to these witnesses/testimonies as some sort of established truth or facts. And then FBI, FEMA, NIST, Purdue, etc. try to prove that the illusion was true.

All witnesses were deceived? Do you have any idea of the implications of that statement?

So you and a few intrepid armchair investigooglers have figured it all out, and have come to the brilliant conclusion that "then FBI, FEMA, NIST, Purdue, etc. try to prove that the illusion was true"? All I have is YOUR word for it, since I'm no expert I rely on experts, and every expert I have ever talked to basically thinks you're full of crap, and for some reason you expect me (or any rational person) to buy this stuff.

Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? Thousands of eye witnesses, probably THE most witnessed major event in world history, were fooled. Structural engineers world-wide fooled, first responders were fooled. Or IN on it, huh? LOL

And then you have the NERVE, after trying to shove this ludicrous theory down our throats you WE'RE the crazy ones, to tell us that we just have no understanding that witnesses can be deceived?

Okay. This is a joke, right.

Heiwa

28th July 2007, 10:57 AM

All witnesses were deceived? Do you have any idea of the implications of that statement?

So you and a few intrepid armchair investigooglers have figured it all out, and have come to the brilliant conclusion that "then FBI, FEMA, NIST, Purdue, etc. try to prove that the illusion was true"? All I have is YOUR word for it, since I'm no expert I rely on experts, and every expert I have ever talked to basically thinks you're full of crap, and for some reason you expect me (or any rational person) to buy this stuff.

Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? Thousands of eye witnesses, probably THE most witnessed major event in world history, were fooled. Structural engineers world-wide fooled, first responders were fooled. Or IN on it, huh? LOL

And then you have the NERVE, after trying to shove this ludicrous theory down our throats you WE'RE the crazy ones, to tell us that we just have no understanding that witnesses can be deceived?

Okay. This is a joke, right.

No. Deception is the most important part of illusion as any magician will say. Of course there was a big, strange bang up at 82nd floor witnessed by a few on the ground but the 'plane'? The plane has been recorded on many videos that all look a little different and strange. Part of the deception. The explosive material was easiest planted in the tower previously.

In other fora I have suggested the same thing for Pentagon. The explosive material was planted in the wall and E-block of the Pentagon!

As you can see on various videos the WTC2 and Pentagon fireballs/fires are completely different. In Pentagon there is no jetfuel on fire! Just a strange, pyramide fireball of short duration. Difficult to hide jetfuel in a wall and in a Pentagon office? In WTC2 the fuel was probably hidden in an empty office.

As nobody has ever seen planes flying into buildings at 500 mph and knows what it looks like, a witness of such an event is easy to decieve. They may hear noise and notice a big explosion ... and draw their erroneous conclusions.

'Experts' appear to say that the plane always penetrate - disappear - into the building and that there is no wreckage. It also disappears. Magic and paranormal. The main subject of JREF. To be discussed in a friendly way, by the way, for those, not you twinstead, that has forgottet that.

This strange lack of identified wreckage parts is very disturbing. Of course, many believe that identified wreckage parts were actually found but I haven't seen a list of those. Some photos of course but they could as well be part of the deception. It seems national security is in the way for a proper investigation.

Heiwa

28th July 2007, 01:07 PM

Many JREF participants seem to have a blind faith in authorities and witnesses about 9/11. But it is easy to falsify an accident investigation and invent some other cause.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news.htm

First - you manipulate what the witnesses experienced.

Second - you find some 'experts' to support the invented cause.

Third - you appoint some 'scientists' so support the invented cause using falsified methods.

Fourth - you ensure that anybody questioning 1 - 3 is accused of being a conspiracy theorist and generally being useless.

Needless to say you use media only to mention the invented cause.

David Wong

28th July 2007, 01:49 PM

Heiwa

28th July 2007, 02:33 PM

And all you have to do is get thousands of people from several countries and all walks of life, to comply with mass murder, without a single one of them coming forward or accidentally spilling the beans or refusing to go along. Not. A. Single. One.

Easy!

Yes, very easy. After the Estonia sank (at least 852 dead) most European governments accepted the false explanations, the United Nations International Maritime Organization belived everything 100%, etc. Then the false, invented (no evidences) explanation became an established truth. Any serious government scientist trying to question it got serious problems with fundings, etc. The message was clear. Shut up or we destroy your career. If you were not a government employé but private it was shut up or we destroy your reputation. The Swedish government executive coordinating the cover up was given a medal by the US! The relatives trying to have the matter investigated in a court were silenced by various means.

But 9/11? The governments and populations of Germany and France are very critical about the official findings. Several ministers have openly questioned them. A majority here does not believe the US authorities official explanations. But it is up to the US citizens to clean up the mess. Charity begins at home.

Corsair 115

28th July 2007, 02:35 PM

As nobody has ever seen planes flying into buildings at 500 mph and knows what it looks like, a witness of such an event is easy to decieve. No, it isn't, and certainly isn't for anyone with a decent pair of eyes for spotting special effects. Should I break out my standard list of questions vis-a-vis your knowledge, understanding, and ability to detect special effects once more?

'Experts' appear to say that the plane always penetrate - disappear - into the building and that there is no wreckage. Uh, if it's inside the building, then how the heck can anyone see it? The building is in the way. But perhaps you're just phrasing your objection poorly and I'm missing what it is you're trying to get at.

This strange lack of identified wreckage parts is very disturbing. I'm disturbed that anyone thinks there'd be much in the way of identifiable wreckage given the speed of the impacts and the absolutely enormous explosions which immediately followed them.

Alt+F4

28th July 2007, 02:47 PM

Any serious government scientist trying to question it got serious problems with fundings, etc. The message was clear. Shut up or we destroy your career. If you were not a government employé but private it was shut up or we destroy your reputation.

If I had important evidence regarding a murder investigation involving hundreds or thousands of victims and revealing that evidence would result in my being fired from my job and destroy my reputation, would I reveal the evidence anyway?

OF COURSE I WOULD.

Wouldn't you?

twinstead

28th July 2007, 02:51 PM

God, not the old, "they are afraid of their careers" argument.

What a cynical, ignorant, and extremely wrong world view you have Heiwa when you think that nobody, out of thousands of people, would "do the right thing" even if it meant loosing their jobs.

You know what? People "do the right thing" every day, sometimes they do it if it means losing their LIVES.

What planet are you from dude?

David Wong

28th July 2007, 03:17 PM

And I can only assume that losing their career would be worth the multi-million dollar book deal that would follow, as well as the chance to go down in history books as one of the greatest heroes of freedom and democracy who ever lived...

T.A.M.

28th July 2007, 04:10 PM

Funny how every second headline on PrisonPlanet is about this or that Whistleblower, yet not one of the engineers has done so, not one single person who could ACTUALLY PROVE 9/11 was an inside job has come forward....no, only whistle blowers who blow smoke about this "inconsistency" or that "peculiarty".

Where are the REAL whistle blowers I wonder.

TAM:)

beachnut

28th July 2007, 04:15 PM

No. Deception is the most important part of illusion as any magician will say. Of course there was a big, strange bang up at 82nd floor witnessed by a few on the ground but the 'plane'? The plane has been recorded on many videos that all look a little different and strange. Part of the deception. The explosive material was easiest planted in the tower previously.

In other fora I have suggested the same thing for Pentagon. The explosive material was planted in the wall and E-block of the Pentagon!

As you can see on various videos the WTC2 and Pentagon fireballs/fires are completely different. In Pentagon there is no jetfuel on fire! Just a strange, pyramide fireball of short duration. Difficult to hide jetfuel in a wall and in a Pentagon office? In WTC2 the fuel was probably hidden in an empty office.

As nobody has ever seen planes flying into buildings at 500 mph and knows what it looks like, a witness of such an event is easy to decieve. They may hear noise and notice a big explosion ... and draw their erroneous conclusions.

'Experts' appear to say that the plane always penetrate - disappear - into the building and that there is no wreckage. It also disappears. Magic and paranormal. The main subject of JREF. To be discussed in a friendly way, by the way, for those, not you twinstead, that has forgottet that.

This strange lack of identified wreckage parts is very disturbing. Of course, many believe that identified wreckage parts were actually found but I haven't seen a list of those. Some photos of course but they could as well be part of the deception. It seems national security is in the way for a proper investigation.
This is the biggest pile of junk I have heard yet.

The aircraft on 9/11 were real and that is exactly how they look when they fly into buildings at 470 to 590 mph. The jet fuel was exactly the same at the Pentagon and the WTC. The camera is not! Not a single thing in your post is true.

No one planted anything in the Pentagon or the WTC. And you have no facts to support any of your absurd ideas.

You could be the smartest person in the world but you have amassed the largest pile of false information on 9/11 I have seen in one post. What is your source for this junk?

beachnut

28th July 2007, 04:44 PM

stateofgrace

28th July 2007, 05:16 PM

If you were not a government employé but private it was shut up or we destroy your reputation.

I have removed the rest of your rubbish and would like you to clarify this rubbish.

Are you seriously suggesting that people, real people, I mean real people would not come forward to do so would destroy their careers? Do you honestly believe this utter naive garbage? that anybody would keep quiet about mass murder because they fear for their careers and reputation?

Are you on something whereby you think you and your loony friends are the only people that can see the world’s injustices? Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow human beings that they would keep quiet when they know full well that there was some form of wrong doing? Is this really, truly, your opinion of your fellow engineers?

T.A.M.

28th July 2007, 06:27 PM

SOG...this line...

you and your loony friends are the only people that can see the world’s injustices? Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow human beings that they would keep quiet when they know full well that there was some form of wrong doing? Is this really, truly, your opinion of your fellow engineers?

pretty much sums up exactly how they view things.

TAM:)

Heiwa

28th July 2007, 11:38 PM

I have removed the rest of your rubbish and would like you to clarify this rubbish.

Are you seriously suggesting that people, real people, I mean real people would not come forward to do so would destroy their careers? Do you honestly believe this utter naive garbage? that anybody would keep quiet about mass murder because they fear for their careers and reputation?

Are you on something whereby you think you and your loony friends are the only people that can see the world’s injustices? Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow human beings that they would keep quiet when they know full well that there was some form of wrong doing? Is this really, truly, your opinion of your fellow engineers?

Of course I am seriously suggesting that real people incl. engineers behave as suggested. Nobody visited the link I posted where I gave an example. And there are others.

Prof. S. Jones tried to be a good citizen and see what happened.

Yes, I think the world is pretty rotten but that it could be changed.

Heiwa

28th July 2007, 11:43 PM

This is the biggest pile of junk I have heard yet.

The aircraft on 9/11 were real and that is exactly how they look when they fly into buildings at 470 to 590 mph. The jet fuel was exactly the same at the Pentagon and the WTC. The camera is not! Not a single thing in your post is true.

No one planted anything in the Pentagon or the WTC. And you have no facts to support any of your absurd ideas.

You could be the smartest person in the world but you have amassed the largest pile of false information on 9/11 I have seen in one post. What is your source for this junk?

I use the following scientific method:

1. All scenarios must be considered to be true until the contrary is proved.
2. All observations, assumptions or statements on which a scenario is based must be considered false until the contrary is proved.

~enigma~

28th July 2007, 11:47 PM

I use the following scientific method:

1. All scenarios must be considered to be true until the contrary is proved.
2. All observations, assumptions or statements on which a scenario is based must be considered false until the contrary is proved.Either you failed science or you paid the teacher to pass you. And you certainly would fail a class in logic.

beachnut

28th July 2007, 11:59 PM

I use the following scientific method:

1. All scenarios must be considered to be true until the contrary is proved.
2. All observations, assumptions or statements on which a scenario is based must be considered false until the contrary is proved.
What? No, a scenario is not true because you say so.

What? Observation are not false. They are observations.

Do you speak or read English? You have major problems with everything. That is not the scientific method, it is some perverted weird junk you wrote.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 12:29 AM

Heiwa is just Swedish.Heiwa also changed my mind extremely negatively about Swedes. Hope the moron is proud.

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 12:40 AM

What? No, a scenario is not true because you say so.

What? Observation are not false. They are observations.

Do you speak or read English? You have major problems with everything. That is not the scientific method, it is some perverted weird junk you wrote.

No, it is a quote from a text book how to analyse, e.g. strange phenomena. If you do not like the music, pls do not shoot the pianist!

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 12:43 AM

Heiwa also changed my mind extremely negatively about Swedes. Hope the moron is proud.

Yes, many Swedes are very strange. That's why I left the country 1971. But most Swedes are quite nice, like the Americans. Ignorant of course about many things, when you live in a big country with small population. Too many trees, so you cannot see the forest.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 12:47 AM

I was stunned. A plane slicing through a wall of steel perimeter columns - like a knife cutting warm butter.
KT...or a fan...in either case the scenarios he is putting forth are total stupidity...for that matter so is Killtown and his supposed new girlfriend the webfairy.

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 12:49 AM

KT...or a fan...in either case the scenarios he is putting forth are total stupidity...for that matter so is Killtown and his supposed new girlfriend the webfairy.

Luckily I have at least one other person supporting me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=297214&mesg_id=297214

So that makes two! And there are many more.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 12:56 AM

. The jet fuel burnt at once in the fire ball or poured down to the street. So no high temperatures could ensue. And no global collapse could ensue.
Jet fuel....but you said the plane impact was faked. Was the jet fuel faked also? I suppose the people in the street that suffered burns from the fake fuel were paid off? If you want, I am sure Gravy can come up with their contact info so you can confront them and call them liars to their face. Your bs is really disgusting.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 01:15 AM

No, it is a quote from a text book how to analyse, e.g. strange phenomena. If you do not like the music, pls do not shoot the pianist!
No way is this from any textbook.

2. All observations, assumptions or statements on which a scenario is based must be considered false until the contrary is provedI am a witness to a plane. According to a scholarly text I must assume it is false until I prove the contrary - in other words I must prove there was no plane in order to prove the plane I saw was real?????

Heiwa, I have two words for you but because of rule8 I can't say them. Suffice it to say that if I ever come to France or meet you anywhere, you will hear them.

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 01:21 AM

Jet fuel....but you said the plane impact was faked. Was the jet fuel faked also? I suppose the people in the street that suffered burns from the fake fuel were paid off? If you want, I am sure Gravy can come up with their contact info so you can confront them and call them liars to their face. Your bs is really disgusting.

You have not read properly. As the plane impact is a fake, the jet fuel cannot have been arriving with the plane at 500 mph and stopped inside the tower on floor 82 within 0.3 seconds. So if jet fuel was burning in the tower, it must have been put there some other way, e.g. using the elevators beforehand transporting it up to floor 82. That's how I would have done it if I were a criminal terrorist carrying out 9/11.

Please, grow up. We discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly way. I am curious how these gangsters really did it.

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 01:25 AM

I am a witness to a plane. According to a scholarly text I must assume it is false until I prove the contrary - in other words I must prove there was no plane in order to prove the plane I saw was real?????

It suffices if you can prove it was a plane you saw. If you cannot prove that the assumtion is, it was no plane.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 01:39 AM

It suffices if you can prove it was a plane you saw. If you cannot prove that the assumtion is, it was no plane.What text is your theory from? i guess it was a lie when you said it is your theory.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 01:41 AM

You have not read properly. As the plane impact is a fake, the jet fuel cannot have been arriving with the plane at 500 mph and stopped inside the tower on floor 82 within 0.3 seconds. So if jet fuel was burning in the tower, it must have been put there some other way, e.g. using the elevators beforehand transporting it up to floor 82. That's how I would have done it if I were a criminal terrorist carrying out 9/11.

Please, grow up. We discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly way. I am curious how these gangsters really did it.
Freindly to you? Remember those two words?

raol

29th July 2007, 01:41 AM

Heiwa also changed my mind extremely negatively about Swedes. Hope the moron is proud.

Please don't let him do that. :( I'm a Swede as well, and I can assure you his is a 100 % not representative. We are all laughing at him over at a swedish forum (flashback.info).

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 01:48 AM

Please don't let him do that. :( I'm a Swede as well, and I can assure you his is a 100 % not representative. We are all laughing at him over at a swedish forum (flashback.info).
Please tell me that Sweden is considering sending a team of thugs to bring him back so they can reinstitute viking burials then I will gladly regain my respect for Swedes :)

Panoply_Prefect

29th July 2007, 04:44 AM

In WTC2 the fuel was probably hidden in an empty office.

Yes, that sounds plausible... obviously the conspiracists thought it an easy task to transport gallons of gallons of flamable jetfuel up those elevators to fill a specially hermetically sealed empty office, just to make sure that the fake plane-story were believed. Not to mention planting all those remote controlled CD devices, faking live video coverages from both national and international media, buying off witnesses, passengers of fake planes and their relatives, paying off the airline-companies, planting explosives in the Pentagon (and jet-fuel as well apparently), faking airplane debris as well as passenger DNA, faking saudi-arabic hijackers (carefully avoiding using afghan- or iraqi ones of course), controlling all investigations made, etc - its an obvious way to do it.

Mimicking the 1993 bomb, now that on the other hand, would have made no sense. No sense at all.

Heiwa also changed my mind extremely negatively about Swedes. Hope the moron is proud.

I just like to bring to the table the fact that he has been living in France the past 30-years.

I blame the frog-eaters.

cheers,
SLOB

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 05:42 AM

Yes, that sounds plausible... obviously the conspiracists thought it an easy task to transport gallons of gallons of flamable jetfuel up those elevators to fill a specially hermetically sealed empty office, just to make sure that the fake plane-story were believed. Not to mention planting all those remote controlled CD devices, faking live video coverages from both national and international media, buying off witnesses, passengers of fake planes and their relatives, paying off the airline-companies, planting explosives in the Pentagon (and jet-fuel as well apparently), faking airplane debris as well as passenger DNA, faking saudi-arabic hijackers (carefully avoiding using afghan- or iraqi ones of course), controlling all investigations made, etc - its an obvious way to do it.

Now we are moving forward in the discussion about how the gangsters did it:

"obviously the conspiracists thought it an easy task to transport gallons of gallons of flamable jetfuel up those elevators to fill a specially hermetically sealed empty office, just to make sure that the fake plane-story were believed".

The service elevators are used for that. Question remains what office they used, that need not be hermetically sealed.

"Not to mention planting all those remote controlled CD devices".

Probably fitted in the elevator shafts and other service spaces.

"faking live video coverages from both national and international media".

Socialworker has shown how it was done.

"buying off witnesses"

That's easy - most of them were deceived by the illusion and did not need to be bought.

"buying off passengers of fake planes and their relatives".

No need to do that; the passengers are missing.

"paying off the airline-companies"

Why is that necessary?

"planting explosives in the Pentagon (and jet-fuel as well apparently)"

Easy of course - but note no jet fuel was planted at Pentagon! The fire/fire ball at Pentagon is not jetfuel! They missed that.

"faking airplane debris"

Also a failure of the gangsters as there was no debris except some minor parts, never properly identified. So some 'expert' was told to say that all debris went up in smoke.

"faking passenger DNA"

Probably easier to fake the military lab report. Of course any DNA analysis should have been done by at least two, independent labs in the first place.

"faking saudi-arabic hijackers (carefully avoiding using afghan- or iraqi ones of course)".

Actually some Egyptians, Yemenites and Maroccans too, but quite easy. They were all duped by people knowing to do such things. Take flying lessons, etc!

"controlling all investigations made, etc".

Easy, the investigators were told just to confirm the gangster Hollywood script based on all leads they miracuously found everywhere.

So SLOB, it is not impossible to create an illusion. And much easier than to hijack real planes, etc.

For those JREF members that have not yet done it, read my book Disaster Investigation from 2000 at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epreamble.htm to see how another country managed to cover-up another fatal incident that took place 1994. The government then, 2001, asked various bodies if the observations of my book was worth further investigation and the answer by a majority was YES. But no further investigation was done. It was at that time a Finnish government spokesperson told media live that 'Heiwa' had no idea what he was talking about and was trying to bring down the Finnish government!!

However Swedish members of parliament, MPs, of all parties suggested again and again further investigations and the government finally agreed 2005 - USD 3 M should be spent 2006-2008 to explain the incident based on the official info by to syndicates of scientists. The ongoing investigations have already confirmed me right in many respects.

So you see, I have not only a good reputation, I get things done by analyzing data and explain the real facts ... but slowly. Pls avoid obnoxious insults in further messages. I am so used to them after being accused of bringing down the Finnish government that they have no effect.

T.A.M.

29th July 2007, 06:04 AM

Now we are moving forward in the discussion about how the gangsters did it:

"obviously the conspiracists thought it an easy task to transport gallons of gallons of flamable jetfuel up those elevators to fill a specially hermetically sealed empty office, just to make sure that the fake plane-story were believed".

The service elevators are used for that. Question remains what office they used, that need not be hermetically sealed.

When did they "plant" these "gallons" of jet fuel...oh let me guess, during the power downs plus they got all dressed up as repair men or janitorial staff, and brought it in under the guise of something else...right.

"Not to mention planting all those remote controlled CD devices".

Probably fitted in the elevator shafts and other service spaces.

Of course. Likewise, they did all this during the brief power downs and under the guise this time of sekrit "electricians" or elevator repairmen...right?

"faking live video coverages from both national and international media".

Socialworker has shown how it was done.

Well, someone showing you it CAN be done, means the USG MUST HAVE done it...right?

"buying off witnesses"

That's easy - most of them were deceived by the illusion and did not need to be bought.

What illusion were the "deceived" by...you mean the sekrit disguises they used to plant all of this stuff?

"buying off passengers of fake planes and their relatives".

No need to do that; the passengers are missing.

Ahhhh - so why not simply move the passengers onto the "drone" planes as a routine "transfer", and then have them locked into the passenger section until the plane is rammed into the buildings...seems that would be an easier cover than having to have someone murder them elsewhere...or are they in "witness protection"?

"paying off the airline-companies"

Why is that necessary?

I guess your right. According to your fantasy, they had the drones all ready, then just had the pilots magically called down from the air, and then put the drones up.

"planting explosives in the Pentagon (and jet-fuel as well apparently)"

Easy of course - but note no jet fuel was planted at Pentagon! The fire/fire ball at Pentagon is not jetfuel! They missed that.

Ahhh...so no jet fuel at the pentagon....it gets even better. Are you writing a manuscript for this...I know a few science fiction publishers.

"faking airplane debris"

Also a failure of the gangsters as there was no debris except some minor parts, never properly identified. So some 'expert' was told to say that all debris went up in smoke.

Doh, damn stupid evil all power moloch cabal.

"faking passenger DNA"

Probably easier to fake the military lab report. Of course any DNA analysis should have been done by at least two, independent labs in the first place.

Why should it have...it was faked anyway...right?

"faking saudi-arabic hijackers (carefully avoiding using afghan- or iraqi ones of course)".

Actually some Egyptians, Yemenites and Maroccans too, but quite easy. They were all duped by people knowing to do such things. Take flying lessons, etc!

ok, (i cant believe I am saying this, but the cat is in need of a ball of wool) you'll have to elaborate...

"controlling all investigations made, etc".

Easy, the investigators were told just to confirm the gangster Hollywood script based on all leads they miracuously found everywhere.

Ok so the investigators are innocent (thank god someone in this story is).

So SLOB, it is not impossible to create an illusion. And much easier than to hijack real planes, etc.

For those JREF members that have not yet done it, read my book Disaster Investigation from 2000 at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epreamble.htm to see how another country managed to cover-up another fatal incident that took place 1994. The government then, 2001, asked various bodies if the observations of my book was worth further investigation and the answer by a majority was YES. But no further investigation was done. It was at that time a Finnish government spokesperson told media live that 'Heiwa' had no idea what he was talking about and was trying to bring down the Finnish government!!

However Swedish members of parliament, MPs, of all parties suggested again and again further investigations and the government finally agreed 2005 - USD 3 M should be spent 2006-2008 to explain the incident based on the official info by to syndicates of scientists. The ongoing investigations have already confirmed me right in many respects.

So you see, I have not only a good reputation, I get things done by analyzing data and explain the real facts ... but slowly. Pls avoid obnoxious insults in further messages. I am so used to them after being accused of bringing down the Finnish government that they have no effect.

Heiwa, you haev got to be 12 years old. I can see no rational adult believing such sensational, detached from reality garbage as what you have listed. Even if there was some proof of the above, most adults would say it was BS, but with no evidence, merely conjecture, you can't HONESTLY believe this...your pulling our leg...right?

TAM:)

GlennB

29th July 2007, 06:19 AM

Heiwa - I had a glance around your website, and noticed that :
"Heiwa Co has designed, got Class approval, and manufactured and fitted a large number of life boat davits to extremely competetive costs." That seems to be about all the real engineering work I can see there.

So, apart from fitting lifeboat davits, what marine engineering have you actually done? Actual, physical engineering, I mean. Could you name some of the clients from "Scandinavia, Japan, Middle East, Ukraine and the Mediterranean area." that you mention in passing?

T.A.M.

29th July 2007, 06:24 AM

Panoply_Prefect

29th July 2007, 06:36 AM

GlennB

29th July 2007, 06:48 AM

You mean he is actually an adult, and believes the above nonsense...ok, he now goes into the ACE Baker/James Fetzer Category.

Where is the damn head shaking smilie...

TAM:)

Of course being a welder is a very honourable profession. And living/working in the Beausoleil/Monaco area sounds pretty good to me.

This is where it gets tricky - should somebody who feels the need to create a fantasy online life simply be ignored? I suspect they should, on the other hand might these discussions act as a wake-up call?

ETA: Looking a little closer, all roads lead to his book on the Estonia ferry disaster. Just another huckster maybe.

twinstead

29th July 2007, 08:22 AM

Heiwa, look carefully at what your 'theory' has become when rational criticism is applied to it. Do you see how you have to keep making it crazier and crazier each time an inconsistency is shown?

You are explaining away ALL evidence that supports the official story by claiming that it all could be faked. And if it could be faked, then by God it WAS faked, and you don't have to deal with it.

You are NOT an investigator. You appear to be a rabid paranoid conspiracy theorist desperately trying to find evidence to fit your delusions. You cant, but, since this is a dark plot by the Man, all is not what it seems.

Your evidence is that all the evidence was faked.

Now, does that sound right at all to you?

We'll ask you the same thing we ask everybody like you; if your evidence of 911 inside job is SO strong, why are you wasting your time in an internet forum arguing with us obviously deluded sheeple?

You need to go forth unto the world and find some journalist, news organization, investigative ogranization (from any country) who wants to make a name for himself and blow this plot wide open.

I know. "in on it" "afraid to loose job" "part of the plot" "victims of the illusion" yadda yadda yadda. It will be hard to find somebody who hasn't been got to first by THEM.

Good luck, though. You can do it! Perhaps YOU are that one savior who will finally get the ball rolling on this whole 911 inside-job thing.

TjW

29th July 2007, 08:51 AM

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 09:18 AM

Easy of course - but note no jet fuel was planted at Pentagon! The fire/fire ball at Pentagon is not jetfuel! They missed that.

So the people inside and outside the pentagon that had injuries from burning jet fuel were liars and so were the doctors and nurses and EMTs that treated them? Sounds like you are a dirty piece of trash that can only sling lies...

Alt+F4

29th July 2007, 09:24 AM

Probably easier to fake the military lab report. Of course any DNA analysis should have been done by at least two, independent labs in the first place.

Please provide EVIDENCE that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York has "faked" any of the DNA evidence regarding the victims of AA11 and UA175.

Please explain how, almost six years later, body parts are still being found at and around ground zero.

Blackadder_no

29th July 2007, 09:58 AM

Yes, very easy. After the Estonia sank (at least 852 dead) most European governments accepted the false explanations, the United Nations International Maritime Organization belived everything 100%, etc. Then the false, invented (no evidences) explanation became an established truth. Any serious government scientist trying to question it got serious problems with fundings, etc. The message was clear. Shut up or we destroy your career. If you were not a government employé but private it was shut up or we destroy your reputation. The Swedish government executive coordinating the cover up was given a medal by the US! The relatives trying to have the matter investigated in a court were silenced by various means.

Uh, you do know that "Baltic Storm" wasn't a documentary, right?

Panoply_Prefect

29th July 2007, 11:30 AM

Uh, you do know that "Baltic Storm" wasn't a documentary, right?

Oh, please dont feed him with Estonia-stuff. It will never stop!

/S

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 12:42 PM

Why do you say jet fuel could not have stopped within two tenths of a second?

Because to me it is physically impossible that a cage of steel perimeter columns stops 30 tons of jetfuel in tanks arriving at 500 mph in such short time. I would expect all the fuel and all the debris of the tanks to continue through the cage and burn for several 100's meters north of the tower in a big fire ball causing a shadow on the ground and on the adjacent tower.

But we do not see this on any video of the incident. Of course we see a fireball ... but what caused it? Stationary fuel? Not arriving at 500 mph! And where are all the parts of the plane? They could not burn up in 0.2 seconds.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 12:47 PM

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 12:47 PM

Please provide EVIDENCE that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York has "faked" any of the DNA evidence regarding the victims of AA11 and UA175.

Please explain how, almost six years later, body parts are still being found at and around ground zero.

I have not seen any DNA evidence of victims of AA11 and UA175 or for that matter of >2000 other victims caught in the WTCs1,2 by named authority. Where can those be found?

I assume body parts found at ground zero origin from people trapped inside the towers. Reason that they are found six years later is obvious.

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 12:48 PM

Ah...the old no plane debris ploy. You really are an idiot, do you know that? Can you tell us here what exactly was found on the roof of wtc 5 and how it didn't belong to the catagory of plane debris? Same for the engine and landing gear in the street. Same for the seat cushions found in the street. Get you facts right you idiot.

Pls rephrase your contribution to the discussion in a more polite manner and I might answer.

T.A.M.

29th July 2007, 12:51 PM

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 12:51 PM

Pls rephrase your contribution to the discussion in a more polite manner and I might answer.
Rephrase yourself moron.

T.A.M.

29th July 2007, 12:52 PM

Pls rephrase your contribution to the discussion in a more polite manner and I might answer.

I am guessing, given the tone and content of his post, that he really doesn't care if you answer him or not.

TAM:)

Alt+F4

29th July 2007, 12:56 PM

I have not seen any DNA evidence of victims of AA11 and UA175 or for that matter of >2000 other victims caught in the WTCs1,2 by named authority. Where can those be found?

I assume body parts found at ground zero origin from people trapped inside the towers. Reason that they are found six years later is obvious.

What expertise do you have in DNA investigation that would warrent you having (personal) access to this evidence?

In November 2006, the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office positively identified the remains of 9/11 victims Karen Martin (AA11) and Douglas Stone (AA11). This past April seven more victims, including Carol Ann LaPlante (WTC 1) and Alberto Dominguez (AA11) were also identified. All of these remains were found in the original recovery effort but identification was not possible until new, advanced DNA technology was developed.

In addition, The New York City Medical Examiner’s Office has 10,000 human remains in storage and it is inevitable that improvements in DNA identification techniques will continue.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 12:58 PM

I am guessing, given the tone and content of his post, that he really doesn't care if you answer him or not.

TAM:)Since I had a family member that died when the tower collapsed and I am sure others here have also along with many others and this moron claims the deaths of 3000 people on 9/11 mean nothing, I could really care less about his intentions and I wish he would just leave the forum. I would have said something else but I am not trying to get banned but someone who says such a stupid thing like he did should get banned.

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 01:01 PM

Heiwa - I had a glance around your website, and noticed that :
"Heiwa Co has designed, got Class approval, and manufactured and fitted a large number of life boat davits to extremely competetive costs." That seems to be about all the real engineering work I can see there.

Ah, the davit design was just a small job for a happy client! Of course I did the whole conversion designs also for 10+ ferries for them. Click on! What do you think about my Egg? http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ce_structure.htm . Plenty of structural design + FEM analysis there. And I got the whole concept approved by the IMO. Only the US objected for strange reasons.

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 01:07 PM

Did I miss something, or were the WTCs infact 110 storey cages? I thought they were office buildings held up by both external and core STEEL columns. I thought they had floors of concrete.

Boy was I stupid, here they were simple cages all along...doh!

TAM:)

You forgot the magic windows stopping the plane/fuel arriving at 500 mph. of course it was the windows. Sorry, I forgot them.

T.A.M.

29th July 2007, 01:10 PM

You forgot the magic windows stopping the plane/fuel arriving at 500 mph. of course it was the windows. Sorry, I forgot them.

500mph? At the exit point from the other side of the WTC? Who said anything was going that fast by the time it reached there? Oh boy, you really need to read what you type before you post it.

TAM:)

Heiwa

29th July 2007, 01:33 PM

500mph? At the exit point from the other side of the WTC? Who said anything was going that fast by the time it reached there? Oh boy, you really need to read what you type before you post it.

TAM:)

I said it. A plane that slices through the south wall/windows at 500 mph and not slowing down at all there (it is just swallowed) should in all probability continue through the open office space inside the tower for 240 feet and exit with a similar speed through the north wall ... and its windows.

But it didn't happen and that is what we discuss. What stopped plane/fuel inside the tower? Magic? A paranormal phenomena?

If 1000's of witnesses far down on the ground observed a plane flying into the south wall of a building full of windows and not being damaged at all flying IN during 0.2 seconds, I would expect same witness observing something flying OUT after say 0.4 seconds through the north wall.

Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all.

The videos are clear - virtually nothing flies OUT.

Why? Poor trickfilming? A possibility that we try to discuss. I have given some suggestions, e.g. the jet fuel was pre-positioned by gangsters, but I am always open for alternative possibilities (except suggestions that I am an idiot that doesn't carry the discussion forward).

It seems that the Ph.D.s have disappeared from the discussion. Come on, you have brains. Clarify the matter!

T.A.M.

29th July 2007, 01:45 PM

I said it. A plane that slices through the south wall/windows at 500 mph and not slowing down at all there (it is just swallowed) should in all probability continue through the open office space inside the tower for 240 feet and exit with a similar speed through the north wall ... and its windows.

But it didn't happen and that is what we discuss. What stopped plane/fuel inside the tower? Magic? A paranormal phenomena?

If 1000's of witnesses far down on the ground observed a plane flying into the south wall of a building full of windows and not being damaged at all flying IN during 0.2 seconds, I would expect same witness observing something flying OUT after say 0.4 seconds through the north wall.

Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all.

The videos are clear - virtually nothing flies OUT.

Why? Poor trickfilming? A possibility that we try to discuss. I have given some suggestions, e.g. the jet fuel was pre-positioned by gangsters, but I am always open for alternative possibilities (except suggestions that I am an idiot that doesn't carry the discussion forward).

It seems that the Ph.D.s have disappeared from the discussion. Come on, you have brains. Clarify the matter!

SO the Concrete slabs, the 47 core columns, the elevator shafts, and all the rest, that was IMAGINARY. In your reality, once the airplane entered the building (I do not know where you get the idea that it didnt slow down any on entry), there was NOTHING in its way until it reached the other side.

I have never nominated a stundie before, but I think this might just qualify.

TAM:)

beachnut

29th July 2007, 01:47 PM

I said it. A plane that slices through the south wall/windows at 500 mph and not slowing down at all there (it is just swallowed) should in all probability continue through the open office space inside the tower for 240 feet and exit with a similar speed through the north wall ... and its windows.

But it didn't happen and that is what we discuss. What stopped plane/fuel inside the tower? Magic? A paranormal phenomena?

If 1000's of witnesses far down on the ground observed a plane flying into the south wall of a building full of windows and not being damaged at all flying IN during 0.2 seconds, I would expect same witness observing something flying OUT after say 0.4 seconds through the north wall.

Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all.

The videos are clear - virtually nothing flies OUT.

Why? Poor trickfilming? A possibility that we try to discuss. I have given some suggestions, e.g. the jet fuel was pre-positioned by gangsters, but I am always open for alternative possibilities (except suggestions that I am an idiot that doesn't carry the discussion forward).

It seems that the Ph.D.s have disappeared from the discussion. Come on, you have brains. Clarify the matter!
You are not very good at 9/11 information. Try again. There was not 60,000 pounds of fuel planted in the WTC towers. That is the most insane idea yet.

Did you forget the core of the WTC buildings?

T.A.M.

29th July 2007, 01:50 PM

Did you forget the core of the WTC buildings?

Apparently in Heiwa's world it does not exist, or is made out of butta.

TAM;)

GlennB

29th July 2007, 01:53 PM

Ah, the davit design was just a small job for a happy client! Of course I did the whole conversion designs also for 10+ ferries for them. Click on! What do you think about my Egg? http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ce_structure.htm . Plenty of structural design + FEM analysis there. And I got the whole concept approved by the IMO. Only the US objected for strange reasons.

But it's the only actual work you mention on your website?

Meanwhile a search of the MAIB (Marine Accident Investigation Branch) at
http://www.maib.gov.uk/home/index.cfm
for "heiwa" or "Bjorkman" returns nothing.

I think you're a b/s merchant, pure and simple. You know nothing about engineering, marine or otherwise.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 02:56 PM

!You didn't take a hike yet?

TjW

29th July 2007, 07:27 PM

Because to me it is physically impossible that a cage of steel perimeter columns stops 30 tons of jetfuel in tanks arriving at 500 mph in such short time. I would expect all the fuel and all the debris of the tanks to continue through the cage and burn for several 100's meters north of the tower in a big fire ball causing a shadow on the ground and on the adjacent tower.

But we do not see this on any video of the incident. Of course we see a fireball ... but what caused it? Stationary fuel? Not arriving at 500 mph! And where are all the parts of the plane? They could not burn up in 0.2 seconds.

Let me get this straight:

You have no problem with the fuel that squirted out the opposite side expanding into small droplets to make a fireball simply by impacting slower moving air.
But.
You don't think any at all would have stopped inside the building after the tanks were shredded by (while shredding) the perimeter columns?
You don't think once outside the tanks it might have splashed against carpet and desks and divider walls and printers and interior columns and ceiling tile and everything else that was inside the building?
You don't think any would have soaked in during this process?
You don't think it was broken into smaller and smaller drops as it collided at high speed with stationary objects and slowly moving air?

You really think that because of the initial velocity, not enough fuel would be stopped by running into obstacles in traversing the two hundred feet of the tower's width to start a significant fire?

Really?

It is amazing though. Not too long ago, "no planes" twoofers were claiming that it was obviously an inside job because "soft aluminum could never cut hard steel". Now it's an inside job because nothing can stop kerosene moving 500 mph.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 07:40 PM

Let me get this straight:

You have no problem with the fuel that squirted out the opposite side expanding into small droplets to make a fireball simply by impacting slower moving air.
But.
You don't think any at all would have stopped inside the building after the tanks were shredded by (while shredding) the perimeter columns?
You don't think once outside the tanks it might have splashed against carpet and desks and divider walls and printers and interior columns and ceiling tile and everything else that was inside the building?
You don't think any would have soaked in during this process?
You don't think it was broken into smaller and smaller drops as it collided at high speed with stationary objects and slowly moving air?

You really think that because of the initial velocity, not enough fuel would be stopped by running into obstacles in traversing the two hundred feet of the tower's width to start a significant fire?

Really?

It is amazing though. Not too long ago, "no planes" twoofers were claiming that it was obviously an inside job because "soft aluminum could never cut hard steel". Now it's an inside job because nothing can stop kerosene moving 500 mph.Leave him alone and maybe the jerk will crawl back underneath his rock.

LashL

29th July 2007, 07:50 PM

I said it. A plane that slices through the south wall/windows at 500 mph and not slowing down at all there (it is just swallowed) should in all probability continue through the open office space inside the tower for 240 feet and exit with a similar speed through the north wall ... and its windows.

You cannot possibly be serious.

But it didn't happen and that is what we discuss. What stopped plane/fuel inside the tower? Magic? A paranormal phenomena?

Again, you cannot possibly be serious. The towers were not simply outer walls with nothing but air between them. You really, really need to do some reading and research before you embarrass yourself further.

If 1000's of witnesses far down on the ground observed a plane flying into the south wall of a building full of windows and not being damaged at all flying IN during 0.2 seconds, I would expect same witness observing something flying OUT after say 0.4 seconds through the north wall.

See above.

(removed the rest of your nonsensical post)

See above.

You know, there have been many troofers here before you. Among them have been the childish, the delusional, the ignorant, the misinformed, the ill-informed, the juvenile, the crazy, the misguided, the trolls, the sockpuppets, the unintentionally stupid, the deliberately stupid, and, on very rare occasions, the semi-rational.

I sincerely hope that you will educate yourself about the topics on which you are opining before repeating your nonsense, if only to narrow down the number of categories above that are applicable to you.

~enigma~

29th July 2007, 07:54 PM

Heiwa

30th July 2007, 01:34 AM

Listen everybody, this moron claimed that the deaths of the victims of 9/11 are meaningless. I lost a member of my family on 9/11 so I respectfully ask everyone here to please ignore this idiot.

Thank you.

Where have I claimed that the deaths of the victims of 9/11 are meaningless (sic)? Nowhere, of course. So please, do not make things up. And please, do not add obnoxious insults! They just make you appear stupid.

Subject is the possibility that the WTC2 impact is not what many people believe or were deceived to believe and that the global collapse that ensued, causing the death of many innocent victims, was not caused by the fire we all have seen but by something else, eg CD.

Simple! Why do so many get upset about a discussion about that? Are they happier (sic) that 19 arabs under OBL did it than some other gangsters?

Another problem is that the responsible authorities only confirmed the initial accusations of OBL and didn't investigate alternatives. I find that sloppy and it doesn't help relatives of the victims. As I understand in many relatives are very sceptical of the official findings.

Many suggest that there is no evidence for an alternative and that therefore it must be OBL. The logic of that is beyond me. The evidence pointing at OBL is very weak even if FBI and the 9/11 Commission state the opposite.

It's like the CIA info about WMDs in Iraq. The CIA stated that they had identified 949 sites of WMDs in Iraq. After the invasion and having special people investigating all 949 sites no WMDs or traces of WMDs of any kind were found. Later the same people found some Iraqis that claimed that Saddam Hussein might have thought of WMDs and that this thinking apparently had confused CIA.

I find the discussion at JREF interesting, i.e. it reveals the thinking of plenty people or lack of it or limitation of it and the reflex to OT insult and abuse.

But now I have more serious matter to attend to. Bye, bye.

Panoply_Prefect

30th July 2007, 05:19 AM

Subject is the possibility that the WTC2 impact is not what many people believe or were deceived to believe and that the global collapse that ensued, causing the death of many innocent victims, was not caused by the fire we all have seen but by something else, eg CD.

Who says the WTC's were brought down by "the fire"?

As I understand in many relatives are very sceptical of the official findings.

What relatives? How many are "many"? And exactly what aspects of the findings are they "very" sceptical of?

Cheers,
SLOB

ArmillarySphere

30th July 2007, 06:13 AM

Let's put this in terms a little more familiar to Heiwa.

A 2,000 ton freighter rams a concrete jetty (skipper asleep at the wheel) at some 15 knots.
Would you expect:
A) The freighter is pristinely intact, making a straight furrow into the pier until it comes to a halt
B) The freighter crumbles into a tinfoil ball, spilling cargo every which where, while the pier resists impact, perhaps suffering some damage to wood bracings.
C) Both freighter and pier suffer damage as the freighter slowly plows to a halt

---

The planes didn't penetrate the walls intact. They crumbled into fragments on impact, but you can't see it since the shredded parts were for the most part inside the building after their moment of impact. The part that hasn't entered appears intact, and barely slowed down - the impact speed was too high to transmit much force to the rear end of the plane.

Now, what does this mean? The parts that were shredded had already been slowed down by the initial impact with the exterior wall, and were resisted further by the office walls, core, and other contents of the interior of the building. A few parts with high density and structural strength survived all the way through the other exterior wall (which slowed them further), ending up outside. A minor portion of the jet fuel also leaked out, but most of it remained inside the building.

As for why it slowed down, well, heard of Newton's second law? As the plane debris knocked down walls, sheared off core columns and generally played havoc inside, it was also slowed by these impacts. Look up "inelastic collision" - an object impacting another will generally have less speed after the collision than before.

T.A.M.

30th July 2007, 06:20 AM

Where have I claimed that the deaths of the victims of 9/11 are meaningless (sic)? Nowhere, of course. So please, do not make things up. And please, do not add obnoxious insults! They just make you appear stupid.

Subject is the possibility that the WTC2 impact is not what many people believe or were deceived to believe and that the global collapse that ensued, causing the death of many innocent victims, was not caused by the fire we all have seen but by something else, eg CD.

Simple! Why do so many get upset about a discussion about that? Are they happier (sic) that 19 arabs under OBL did it than some other gangsters?

Another problem is that the responsible authorities only confirmed the initial accusations of OBL and didn't investigate alternatives. I find that sloppy and it doesn't help relatives of the victims. As I understand in many relatives are very sceptical of the official findings.

Many suggest that there is no evidence for an alternative and that therefore it must be OBL. The logic of that is beyond me. The evidence pointing at OBL is very weak even if FBI and the 9/11 Commission state the opposite.

It's like the CIA info about WMDs in Iraq. The CIA stated that they had identified 949 sites of WMDs in Iraq. After the invasion and having special people investigating all 949 sites no WMDs or traces of WMDs of any kind were found. Later the same people found some Iraqis that claimed that Saddam Hussein might have thought of WMDs and that this thinking apparently had confused CIA.

I find the discussion at JREF interesting, i.e. it reveals the thinking of plenty people or lack of it or limitation of it and the reflex to OT insult and abuse.

But now I have more serious matter to attend to. Bye, bye.

This will be my last post in response to you until you retract the comments that the attacks were "ok" because, as you said, they were a "legal military action". This is what Enigma is referring to, wrt you justifying their deaths. Go back through your own posts and see. I respect Enigma's request, and until you retract your comments, or make ammends, or clarify, I will not be addressing you on this forum.

As well, I see you are also making use of the common CTer practice of switching topics when someone confronts you on one.

Stick with the WTC impact, and your suggestion that there was no slowing of the debris once in through the entrance external columns...you have not finished with that topic, as others here are calling you on it.

TAM:mad:

Heiwa

30th July 2007, 09:20 AM

This will be my last post in response to you until you retract the comments that the attacks were "ok" because, as you said, they were a "legal military action". This is what Enigma is referring to, wrt you justifying their deaths. Go back through your own posts and see. I respect Enigma's request, and until you retract your comments, or make ammends, or clarify, I will not be addressing you on this forum.

??? Where have I said that "the attacks were "ok" because, as you said, they were a "legal military action"." ???? I would never say anything of the sort. I am a pacifist against all violence, etc. I like peaceful discussions.

T.A.M.

30th July 2007, 09:32 AM

??? Where have I said that "the attacks were "ok" because, as you said, they were a "legal military action"." ???? I would never say anything of the sort. I am a pacifist against all violence, etc. I like peaceful discussions.

Heiwa:

My deepest apologies if you did not state this. These last 4-5 days we have seen an influx of people promoting the same ideas (you, Galelio, RedIbis, Vfor911, others) plus others who have done so in the last month, so I may have accused you wrongly of something, it has been very hard to keep track of who said what. As a result I am posting here again, and will continue to engage you in dialogue until Enigma can make clear why he has stated what he has about your comments.

Once again, sorry.

TAM (wiping egg from face)

~enigma~

30th July 2007, 11:57 AM

You know I really don't care if you fool everybody on this site but you said the arabs were patsies. you spoke of the nose of the plane exiting the building, you claim witnesses were wrong, you claim there were bombs placed in the wtc....you are a piece of trash and I honestly think people like you should have been the victims of the wtc and the victims on the plane that you claim didn't hit. Go to hell.

T.A.M.

30th July 2007, 12:09 PM

Enigma:

Come on man, you don't really mean that. As horrible as the tragedy was, and the mockery that the truth movement makes of it, you still wouldn't wish that same tragedy on anyone would you?

I understand your anger, though having not lost anyone I know or love in the tragedy, I can not empathize. I just think you are a better person than to wish such things on anyone, even those you feel mock the tragedy itself through their comments.

TAM:(

beachnut

30th July 2007, 12:35 PM

??? Where have I said that "the attacks were "ok" because, as you said, they were a "legal military action"." ???? I would never say anything of the sort. I am a pacifist against all violence, etc. I like peaceful discussions.
You are supporting 9/11 truth out of ignorance or on purpose. You refuse to take factual evidence and visual proof into account, and then you make up junk as you go with out researching the subject first. You have not done much research and post statements which show the same. Do not expect much since you refuse to learn or try to research your false ideas on your own and then ask relevant questions. You have been fooled by the fools who make up stuff in 9/11 truth. They are liars, they have no facts to back up their lies. Wake up.

~enigma~

30th July 2007, 12:43 PM

Enigma:

Come on man, you don't really mean that. As horrible as the tragedy was, and the mockery that the truth movement makes of it, you still wouldn't wish that same tragedy on anyone would you?
On this piece of trash my answer at this time is yes. Nobody in the truth movement except the very few who have the attitude...3000?! so what, there are 300,000 dead in Iraq...for them I feel the same. Now I am not claiming he said anything like this but he said things that indicate this is how he feels and personally I think that is the lowest a human can go. They deserve no sympathy.

T.A.M.

30th July 2007, 12:49 PM

Well while that is regrettable, I can see how, having lost someone close in the tragedy, you feel that way.

TAM:(

Belz...

30th July 2007, 01:18 PM

Of course I am seriously suggesting that real people incl. engineers behave as suggested.

And do you have a reason for suggesting this, aside from your preconceived notions that, apart from you, people have no conscience ?

As the plane impact is a fake, the jet fuel cannot have been arriving with the plane at 500 mph and stopped inside the tower on floor 82 within 0.3 seconds.

And how do you know the impact is fake ? Because the fuel didn't leave the building ? Isn't that a tad circular ?

In WTC2 the fuel was probably hidden in an empty office.

Why not just crash an airliner into it ?

see how another country managed to cover-up another fatal incident

Covering up an accident and making it happen by employing thousands of people and having them participate in the murder of 3000 of their own is not the same.

You forgot the magic windows stopping the plane/fuel arriving at 500 mph. of course it was the windows. Sorry, I forgot them.

Who in the flying grandma's name said it stopped in the building ?

I said it. A plane that slices through the south wall/windows at 500 mph and not slowing down at all there (it is just swallowed)

You're living in a fantasy world. The plane most assuredly did slow down while it was plowing through the building. Whatever gave you the idea that it didn't ?

should in all probability continue through the open office space inside the tower for 240 feet and exit with a similar speed through the north wall ... and its windows.

That's because you don't understand squat about what you're talking about.

Belz...

30th July 2007, 01:22 PM

Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all.

Why do you truthers insist on calling everybody a complete idiot ?

The videos are clear - virtually nothing flies OUT.

Why? Poor trickfilming?

Begging the question.

Many suggest that there is no evidence for an alternative and that therefore it must be OBL. The logic of that is beyond me.

Strawmen rarely engage in logic.

Heiwa

31st July 2007, 12:45 AM

You are supporting 9/11 truth out of ignorance or on purpose. You refuse to take factual evidence and visual proof into account, and then you make up junk as you go with out researching the subject first. You have not done much research and post statements which show the same. Do not expect much since you refuse to learn or try to research your false ideas on your own and then ask relevant questions. You have been fooled by the fools who make up stuff in 9/11 truth. They are liars, they have no facts to back up their lies. Wake up.

Thanks for you frank opinion. I do not share your opinion about factual evidence and visual proof. Evidence! Soon after 9/11 FBI finds a suitcase full of incriminating stuff + a testimony, etc. Evidence? Or planted to mislead the investigators. A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist. Evidence? Come on! But subject was actually the assumptions behind a structural analysis. My opinion is that the assumptions are twisted to obtain a certain result. And that is disturbing. But it seems it cannot be discussed in a friendly manner on this forum.

Panoply_Prefect

31st July 2007, 12:48 AM

But subject was actually the assumptions behind a structural analysis. My opinion is that the assumptions are twisted to obtain a certain result. And that is disturbing.

The problem you have is that you seem to confuse "assumptions" with scientific work. You assume a lot and thus you seem to think that everybody does. That is not so. Now, that is sorted, what a relief.

How about that theory of yours? It would obviously greatly improve the common ground on which to continue a friendly discussion, since your opponents wouldn't have to guess all the time what exactly you are talking about.

Or to put it in your words:

Or try at least.

/SLOB

Corsair 115

31st July 2007, 01:11 AM

A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist.Why is finding a (relatively intact) passport a problem? Do you have the mistaken impression that an aircraft crash and explosion automatically destroys everything aboard it? Have you familiarized yourself with some of the items which survived the break up of the space shuttle Columbia on re-entry?

stateofgrace

31st July 2007, 03:10 AM

Thanks for you frank opinion. I do not share your opinion about factual evidence and visual proof. Evidence! Soon after 9/11 FBI finds a suitcase full of incriminating stuff + a testimony, etc. Evidence? Or planted to mislead the investigators. A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist. Evidence? Come on! But subject was actually the assumptions behind a structural analysis. My opinion is that the assumptions are twisted to obtain a certain result. And that is disturbing. But it seems it cannot be discussed in a friendly manner on this forum.

Come on? No sunbeam you come on.

You have posted no end of speculation from your belief that people jumped to their deaths because they saw one of the towers collapse to your belief that the planes did not even hit the towers and that nobody in New York saw them.

Now you say people should come on because a passport was found at GZ. I'll tell you what else was recovered from GZ sunbeam, the remains of 1200 people and 54000 personnel effects, all planted eh? All fake?

How about...........

Also identified this week were the remains of Betty Ann Ong, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to hit the trade center

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200203/21/eng20020321_92502.shtml
It is hardly surprising you are not greeted with open arms and to be frank, I am actually amazed people show you any tolerance at all.

Belz...

31st July 2007, 05:47 AM

Thanks for you frank opinion. I do not share your opinion about factual evidence and visual proof. Evidence! Soon after 9/11 FBI finds a suitcase full of incriminating stuff + a testimony, etc. Evidence?

Let me get this straight.

No evidence = conspiracy.
Evidence = conspiracy.

Don't you think your position is a tad unfalsifiable ??

Or planted to mislead the investigators.

Begging the question.

A passport is found intact in Manhattan belonging to an alleged terrrorist. Evidence? Come on!

Argument from incredulity.

Heiwa

31st July 2007, 09:46 AM

I say: "Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all."

Belz... answer #422: "Why do you truthers insist on calling everybody a complete idiot ?"

Question: Where do them truthers (me?) insist on calling everybody a complete idiot?

I have to say that the analysis by 'socialservice' of the live (sic) reporting of WTC2 explosion on http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice is interesting.

The commentators - live - do not observe a plane first. Bad witnesses? Or what? Idiots?

And why are the 'live' recordings later edited or improved?

In this respect are the 20-30 amateur videos of the same event of interest.

The obvious question: Are these amateurs filming the same event? Because it seems the angle and height of the flight of the plane differs from one to another, the fire ball, its velocity in different directions and the shadow it casts on the adjacent tower differ, etc.

Are some amateur videos correct and others not? Why? Or are all of them faked? Why? Or all correct and unedited? Are these stupid questions?

funk de fino

31st July 2007, 09:50 AM

Heiwa

31st July 2007, 10:06 AM

Why is finding a (relatively intact) passport a problem? Do you have the mistaken impression that an aircraft crash and explosion automatically destroys everything aboard it? Have you familiarized yourself with some of the items which survived the break up of the space shuttle Columbia on re-entry?

It seems that plane parts found on WTC5 could not origin from AA175 or a Boeing 767/200 as the rivets below the windows are in the wrong position.
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/planted.htm

kookbreaker

31st July 2007, 12:04 PM

It seems that plane parts found on WTC5 could not origin from AA175 or a Boeing 767/200 as the rivets below the windows are in the wrong position.
http://www.explosive911analysis.com/planted.htm

Ummm, who put the 'yellow rivets' on the debris pictures? I couldn't find them on the FEMA source, the article does not note who put them there, as far as I can tell, they did it themselves.

Even if FEMA put the 'yellow rivets' on themselves, this article is horribly sourced and very deceptive.

Par for the CT course.

Panoply_Prefect

31st July 2007, 12:40 PM

I have to say that the analysis by 'socialservice' of the live (sic) reporting of WTC2 explosion on http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice is interesting.

If they could CGI planes onto live coverage on WTC1 and 2, why haven't they managed at the Pentagon?

And why are the 'live' recordings later edited or improved?

You keep claiming this without any evidence. What recordings, and where and how?

Heiwa

31st July 2007, 02:44 PM

If they could CGI planes onto live coverage on WTC1 and 2, why haven't they managed at the Pentagon?

You keep claiming this without any evidence. What recordings, and where and how?

A. There was evidently no live media coverage of Pentagon prior the explosion there. The only live video coverage was by various cameras fitted for other purposes and those films have been confiscated by the FBI (and never seen again).

B. I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.

C. Why this change of suit?

Panoply_Prefect

31st July 2007, 02:56 PM

A. There was evidently no live media coverage of Pentagon prior the explosion there. The only live video coverage was by various cameras fitted for other purposes and those films have been confiscated by the FBI (and never seen again).

So you are saying that the conspirators can succesfully edit, live and in realtime, media coverage and inject CGI airplanes into the broadcast of both national and international news companies, but they can't do it with recorded surveillance cams that they already have exclusive control over and have had so for the past six years?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

B. I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.

Please provide links to the non-edited as well as the edited versions. And why did the miss the CNN coverage. I think I've asked you this about three or four times on two different fora now:

Yes, I seem to recall you claimed that even all the archived material at Wayback Machine has been edited prior to being uploaded, to remove that "fade to black" you seem to think, for some reason, indicates live realtime editing. You failed, however, to explain as to why while the clips from BBC, FOX5 and ABC had no Fade-to-black, CNN still had it. But, oh, its obvious. NWO slipped there didn't they, yeah, thats right.

Adding to that, linkies to what you claim is the original material.

C. Why this change of suit?

Because I didn't really like the connotations the nick gave on an english-speaking board. Plus, I like change.

funk de fino

31st July 2007, 03:03 PM

The only live video coverage was by various cameras fitted for other purposes and those films have been confiscated by the FBI (and never seen again).

you really are not very good at this are you?

the yellow rivets post is an astounding piece of stupidity almost up with mr kirkman

another plant IMO

see ya

Corsair 115

31st July 2007, 04:38 PM

I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.Are you aware that there are over 40 different camera angles of the second aircraft impact? All shot from different vantage points on different cameras by different people, some professional news cameramen, the rest private individuals.

Some of us back then spent the better part of 9/11 and the next two days doing little else but watching the news. Like me, for example. I flipped around between TV networks constantly looking for new reports and updated information. I saw many, many different angles of the jet impacts played on different networks, with these images being replayed often. My roster of networks watched included both U.S. and non-U.S. networks.

There was no video fakery. It's a non-starter. If you're going to claim the 9/11 jet footage was faked then you might as well claim all the Apollo footage of astronauts on the moon was faked too, because both notions have about an equal chance of being true (which is to say zero chance).

stateofgrace

31st July 2007, 06:48 PM

AB. I have only seen media recordings of the explosion at WTC2 without interruption of 'Fade to Black' and various 'beeps' that according 'socialservice' was included in the 'live' show and thus I conclude the recordings have been edited.

You conclude? I'm sorry but who exactly are you?

Oh yes I forgot, you concluded that people jumped from WTC 1 because WTC 2 collapsed, you also concluded that nobody in New York saw flight 175 hit WTC 2, oh I almost forgot, you also concluded that upper part of WTC 2 was blown up in mid air.

Your conclusions are irrelevant because you are trying to sound smart and educated when you are not. You believe you are talking to young children, when in fact you are talking to adults, who could not care less what you conclude, unless you offer real and substantiated facts to back your conclusions. See, sunbeam science does not start with a conclusion, it concludes with a conclusion, something you obviously missed in your extensive engineering academic training.

BTW, my offshore co worker you never actually told me what the exclusion zone was, any idea? Or should I conclude you are a fraud?

Alferd_Packer

31st July 2007, 07:16 PM

You conclude? I'm sorry but who exactly are you?

Like I said when he first showed up,

He is a B.S. artist.

Heiwa

1st August 2007, 02:30 AM

Ummm, who put the 'yellow rivets' on the debris pictures? I couldn't find them on the FEMA source, the article does not note who put them there, as far as I can tell, they did it themselves.

Even if FEMA put the 'yellow rivets' on themselves, this article is horribly sourced and very deceptive.

Par for the CT course.

Anyway - it would have been easy to identify the window frames and see where they originated from, etc. but it was not done. It seems FBI and FEMA collected a whole container full of plane scrap and at least some bits could have been properly identified.

Heiwa

1st August 2007, 02:37 AM

So you are saying that the conspirators can succesfully edit, live and in realtime, media coverage and inject CGI airplanes into the broadcast of both national and international news companies, but they can't do it with recorded surveillance cams that they already have exclusive control over and have had so for the past six years?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Please provide links to the non-edited as well as the edited versions. And why did the miss the CNN coverage. I think I've asked you this about three or four times on two different fora now:

Adding to that, linkies to what you claim is the original material.

Because I didn't really like the connotations the nick gave on an english-speaking board. Plus, I like change.

Re Pentagon, I assume it was too difficult to copy/paste a plane into the surveillance videos cutting lamp posts, etc. for them to appear credible ... so the videos, showing nothing or something else, had to be destroyed. The only video is then the one showing a gate to a parking with Pentagon in the background and it is not very convincing.

'Socialservice' provides links to all sources of his/her analysis. Myself I was peacefully repairing my house in germany on 9/11 when somebody phoned and asked me to switch on the TV and watch the drama. But I had no TV! So I have only later seen clips of the explosions without any 'Fade to Black' och 'beeps', etc. so I assume I have been shown edited stuff.

Heiwa

1st August 2007, 02:45 AM

Are you aware that there are over 40 different camera angles of the second aircraft impact? All shot from different vantage points on different cameras by different people, some professional news cameramen, the rest private individuals.

Some of us back then spent the better part of 9/11 and the next two days doing little else but watching the news. Like me, for example. I flipped around between TV networks constantly looking for new reports and updated information. I saw many, many different angles of the jet impacts played on different networks, with these images being replayed often. My roster of networks watched included both U.S. and non-U.S. networks.

There was no video fakery. It's a non-starter. If you're going to claim the 9/11 jet footage was faked then you might as well claim all the Apollo footage of astronauts on the moon was faked too, because both notions have about an equal chance of being true (which is to say zero chance).

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing. Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages. If it doesn't something is strange.

Maybe you were deceived?

GlennB

1st August 2007, 04:10 AM

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing. Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages. If it doesn't something is strange.

Maybe you were deceived?

It does look the same, so nothing is "strange". Meanwhile it matches what thousands of people saw with their own eyes, so you can relax.

p.s. we were talking a while back about your experience as a marine accident investigator/engineer. You never did provide any links to the actual physical investigations you've done, or the marine engineering work you have carried out. Perhaps you were too busy at the time?

Belz...

1st August 2007, 05:53 AM

I say: "Of course the witnesses focusing on the south wall might not have seen the north wall at all."

Belz... answer #422: "Why do you truthers insist on calling everybody a complete idiot ?"

Yeah. You're basically claiming that everybody who doesn't support your theory is hopelessly and mindlessly wrong, for some reason. Isn't that an idiot ?

It seems that plane parts found on WTC5 could not origin from AA175 or a Boeing 767/200 as the rivets below the windows are in the wrong position.

Right. Sure, Heiwa. Oh, wait. No.

Re Pentagon, I assume it was too difficult to copy/paste a plane into the surveillance videos cutting lamp posts, etc. for them to appear credible ...

And yet they manage to do it REAL-TIME for the WTC ??????666sixhundredsixtysix

so the videos, showing nothing or something else, had to be destroyed.

Speculation.

Panoply_Prefect

1st August 2007, 10:59 AM

'Socialservice' provides links to all sources of his/her analysis.

Then you should have no problems providing links to the verified "before" and "after" material, should you? You came up with the claim here, you prove it.

I've seen for instance the CNN clips from Wayback machine. They have not been edited, they still contain fades. That counters your "theory" and you have so far failed to explain why NWO managed all this videoediting, but still missed that one (Neither, should I perhaps add, have you managed to explain the relevance of these "fades" and "blips").

beachnut

1st August 2007, 11:10 AM

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing. Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages. If it doesn't something is strange.

Maybe you were deceived?
The only strange thing is the fantasy you truth guys make up. This is an insane idea. What a bunch of tripe. No facts, no science, just junk. I have to agree, only idiots pay attention to this stuff, do you agree?

Panoply_Prefect

1st August 2007, 11:12 AM

The only strange thing is the fantasy you truth guys make up. This is an insane idea. What a bunch of tripe. No facts, no science, just junk.

Its not junk! Its a googlievideo, in colour no less! Its the truth I tell you, those pictures are moving!

Heiwa

1st August 2007, 02:16 PM

Then you should have no problems providing links to the verified "before" and "after" material, should you? You came up with the claim here, you prove it.

I've seen for instance the CNN clips from Wayback machine. They have not been edited, they still contain fades. That counters your "theory" and you have so far failed to explain why NWO managed all this videoediting, but still missed that one (Neither, should I perhaps add, have you managed to explain the relevance of these "fades" and "blips").

?? When I watched the recorded videos of 9/11 on TV after the incidents there were no 'fades' or 'beeps' and I assumed it was true recordings of the earlier 'live' transmissions. And then 5 years later 'socialservice' explains that there were 'fades' and 'beeps' ... and why; the 'live' transmissions were manipulated! It is not my theory! I am just curious what other people think about it. The only answers I get are that I am stupid but it does not explain the 'fades' and 'beeps'.

I have never seen any 'fades' and 'beeps' in any live news transmissions until 'socialservice' pointed it out.

And it is more! The 'plane' penetrates WTC2 south wall and the intact nose exits WTC2 north wall in the live transmission just before the 'Fade to black' message ... and then disappears. What was that? Socialservice suggets sloppy copy/paste. Later we see the north wall - one perimeter column damaged. So how did the nose get out?

beachnut

1st August 2007, 02:23 PM

?? When I watched the recorded videos of 9/11 on TV after the incidents there were no 'fades' or 'beeps' and I assumed it was true recordings of the earlier 'live' transmissions. And then 5 years later 'socialservice' explains that there were 'fades' and 'beeps' ... and why; the 'live' transmissions were manipulated! It is not my theory! I am just curious what other people think about it. The only answers I get are that I am stupid but it does not explain the 'fades' and 'beeps'.

I have never seen any 'fades' and 'beeps' in any live news transmissions until 'socialservice' pointed it out.

And it is more! The 'plane' penetrates WTC2 south wall and the intact nose exits WTC2 north wall in the live transmission just before the 'Fade to black' message ... and then disappears. What was that? Socialservice suggets sloppy copy/paste. Later we see the north wall - one perimeter column damaged. So how did the nose get out?
You have to use your head. The nose did not exit. The nose of the aircraft is made of plastic, fiberglass. It was destroyed as the aircraft crashed into the building. The people that say the nose exited the building do not have much knowledge or the logical reasoning to figure out anything. Sorry you have fallen for the dumbest ideas on record. You should finish school and stop falling for idiots making up lies about 9/11. Nose, that is funny. Not too smart, but funny as in ha ha, and strange.

Panoply_Prefect

1st August 2007, 03:40 PM

?? When I watched the recorded videos of 9/11 on TV after the incidents there were no 'fades' or 'beeps' and I assumed it was true recordings of the earlier 'live' transmissions.

What you saw or not saw on TV has no relevance to this discussion, unless you can provide us with ample evidence that there is in fact a "before" and "after" version of the live-tv coverage that was aired that day. Which you have so far failed to produce.

Second thing you need to do is to demonstrate what the presence, or non-presence, of these "fades" and "beeps" have to do with anything at all.

Fact is, the CNN coverage contains a "fade". Which means either your claim is faulty, or NWO slipped (and is still slipping for that matter!).

(14:57 into the clip):

http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929

There ya go. It blips to black, just as the second plane hits. So, NWO, wake up, you obvious slipped up here. Go edit, before more investigooglers find it. And don't forget to give me an extra bonus for the find.

Interesting part is that your theory is unfalsifiable. Presence of "fades" and "blips"--->proof of tampering, lack of "fades" and "blips" ---> even more proof of tampering.

Corsair 115

1st August 2007, 04:19 PM

Study 'socialservice' analysis again (all six parts) where he/she claims video fakery in the live show of WTC2. What you the saw the next days were probably some variations of the same thing. Since it seems your comprehension skills are a little lax, I'll repeat it: OVER 40 DIFFERENT CAMERA ANGLES RECORDED THE SAME EVENT.

Some of these angles appeared later on 9/11; others appeared in the days following as different networks got different angles from different people. I can't recall exactly, but very few of the videos were exclusive; there was for the most part a lot of co-operation between the news networks regarding the sharing of footage.

Only later have all these amateur films appeared to confirm the 'live' WTC2 show, i.e. with plenty of time to fake those too. See above. Some appeared on CNN, CTV, CBC, NBC, etc., on 9/11, some were first broadcast the next day or the second day after.

Note that there is only one explosion/impact of WTC2 and it must look the same on all alleged photages. They do, within the context of understanding different camera angles and cameras.

ETA: Then there's all the still photos of the events, and all the eyewitness accounts. Do you still believe in the fantasy of fakery claims?

Newtons Bit

1st August 2007, 04:41 PM

Since it seems your comprehension skills are a little lax, I'll repeat it: OVER 40 DIFFERENT CAMERA ANGLES RECORDED THE SAME EVENT.

Some of these angles appeared later on 9/11; others appeared in the days following as different networks got different angles from different people. I can't recall exactly, but very few of the videos were exclusive; there was for the most part a lot of co-operation between the news networks regarding the sharing of footage.

See above. Some appeared on CNN, CTV, CBC, NBC, etc., on 9/11, some were first broadcast the next day or the second day after.

They do, within the context of understanding different camera angles and cameras.

ETA: Then there's all the still photos of the events, and all the eyewitness accounts. Do you still believe in the fantasy of fakery claims?

What I want to know is how not a single private or otherwise independant person managed to film or take a picture of the faked 2nd plane impact explosion.

stateofgrace

1st August 2007, 05:40 PM

Maybe you were deceived?

Other members have addressed what I have snipped out of this post but please allow me.

Heiwa, maybe just maybe you are being deceived, have you ever considered that possibility? Has it ever crossed your mind to apply the same standards of critical thinking you apply to proving some totally unbelievable theory to the claims put forward by the truth movement?

Maybe you should actually give it a shot, just for a moment look, seriously, are what you are suggesting and apply your thinking skills to it.

It as never crossed your mind, that in you desire to have a go at the man, that maybe; just maybe you are being fed a complete load of BS. It is easy to accuse those that try to debunk this rubbish of simply buying into the OCT or being sheep or whatever. But Heiwa, the same standard is applied to you and the movement you support. You simply buy into it; you believe anything that backs up your pre determined conclusions.

You are trying to sell what you believe to the world, not me or anybody here. You will never get off the starting block unless you can seriously analyse everything you are told, in a totally impartial way.

This is why you fail, because you cannot see the deception you are being sold, you cannot see beyond your own wishful thinking and will not apply the same standards to the rubbish promoted by the truth movement.

Belz...

2nd August 2007, 05:25 AM

I have never seen any 'fades' and 'beeps' in any live news transmissions until 'socialservice' pointed it out.

So, what does it all mean ?

The 'plane' penetrates WTC2 south wall and the intact nose exits WTC2 north wall in the live transmission just before the 'Fade to black' message ... and then disappears. What was that?

Certainly not the "nose" of the airplane. You've GOT to stop believing people just because they tell you something, and that applies to everyone.

Socialservice suggets sloppy copy/paste.

You might want to ask that person how come only ignorant people get to notice those things.

Heiwa

2nd August 2007, 09:24 AM

So, what does it all mean ?

You might want to ask that person how come only ignorant people get to notice those things.

So 'socialservice' produces a six parts analysis of the live and recorded transmissions of WTC2 exploding and finds some strange things. Why shouldn't we discuss those?
Is it normal that a live transmission is interrupted by 'Fade to black' messages? And strange beeps? Not where I live. And the coincidence of zooming in before the 'plane' hits. I think 'socialservice' provides some rational explanations. What are wrong with those?
The simple question is: Is it possible to copy/paste in a live transmission as suggested by 'socialservice'?

Panoply_Prefect

2nd August 2007, 09:31 AM

Is it normal that a live transmission is interrupted by 'Fade to black' messages?

Ignoring the fact that you have ignored most of the replies given to you, how is a black glitch a "message"?

T.A.M.

2nd August 2007, 09:32 AM

SO you are a no-planer as well Heiwa...oh boy...it is worse than I thought.

I am assuming, that "socialservice" is our very own ACE Baker (TS1234).

TAM:rolleyes:

T.A.M.

2nd August 2007, 09:33 AM

Ace's theory, is because when he runs the video frame by frame, he gets 1-2 frames of half grey, half video, then black, that this is irrefutable proof that it was a quick "fade to black" not a drop in signal.

TAM:)

twinstead

2nd August 2007, 09:36 AM

I am assuming, that "socialservice" is our very own ACE Baker (TS1234).

Ah...there's a special place in the woo woo pantheon reserved for Ace.

Belz...

2nd August 2007, 10:07 AM

So 'socialservice' produces a six parts analysis of the live and recorded transmissions of WTC2 exploding and finds some strange things. Why shouldn't we discuss those?

I didn't say we shouldn't discuss it. I'm asking you why only laypeople with no knowledge of the technologies, techniques, physics or other principles involved seem to "spot" these things.

Is it normal that a live transmission is interrupted by 'Fade to black' messages? And strange beeps? Not where I live.

I wouldn't know. I'm not knowledgeable in this field.

And the coincidence of zooming in before the 'plane' hits.

Question: if it didn't zoom, would you be asking why they had framed the image perfectly before the plane hit ?

I think 'socialservice' provides some rational explanations. What are wrong with those?

If by "rational" you mean "believable", then what's wrong is that they don't correspond to reality.

The simple question is: Is it possible to copy/paste in a live transmission as suggested by 'socialservice'?

No.

Zorglub

2nd August 2007, 01:45 PM

The simple question is: Is it possible to copy/paste in a live transmission as suggested by 'socialservice'?
The simple question is: Is it possible to edit live transmissions and syncronize the copy/paste of a non-existing plane crashing into WTC with the controlled detonation of thousands of gallons secretly hidden jet fuel?

On the other hand, it would be possible to edit the live transmissions and disguise a fire breathing dragon as an ordinary Boeing.

twinstead

2nd August 2007, 01:52 PM

Don't forget Heiwa that this would also have to fool thousands of people watching in person.

~enigma~

2nd August 2007, 02:06 PM

Don't forget Heiwa that this would also have to fool thousands of people watching in person.
Did anybody here think about why this PDOPE sock chose the screenname Heiwa? Anybody here know japanese? Apparenty PDOPE has a Japanese/English dictionary. The translation is peace. How much more obvious does it have to be?

Heiwa

3rd August 2007, 12:08 AM

You have to use your head. The nose did not exit. The nose of the aircraft is made of plastic, fiberglass. It was destroyed as the aircraft crashed into the building. The people that say the nose exited the building do not have much knowledge or the logical reasoning to figure out anything. Sorry you have fallen for the dumbest ideas on record. You should finish school and stop falling for idiots making up lies about 9/11. Nose, that is funny. Not too smart, but funny as in ha ha, and strange.

Socialservice maintains that the nose exited WTC2 and that the reason for that is sloppy copy/paste of a pixel nose! And if a pixel nose exited, what entered WTC2? A pixel plane?
So it seems that it is possible to fake live transmissions, actually just add one picture on top of another and modify as required. By googling around a little I have found a lot of links confirming this suggestion by socialservice.
So the no 'real' plane theory may have some substance. It was a pixel plane! And then you wonder what gangsters have the opportunity to deceive us with pixel planes.

beachnut

3rd August 2007, 12:40 AM

Socialservice maintains that the nose exited WTC2 and that the reason for that is sloppy copy/paste of a pixel nose! And if a pixel nose exited, what entered WTC2? A pixel plane?
So it seems that it is possible to fake live transmissions, actually just add one picture on top of another and modify as required. By googling around a little I have found a lot of links confirming this suggestion by socialservice.
So the no 'real' plane theory may have some substance. It was a pixel plane! And then you wonder what gangsters have the opportunity to deceive us with pixel planes.
That is not a rational thought on this topic? What you have posted has no support in reality. (eyes that saw aircraft)

The noses of the planes on 9/11 are made of plastic. They were destroyed first. No they did not fake the planes. Real people died on 9/11 in the 4 aircraft. Only idiots believe this junk you have posted. People saw the planes hit the WTC with their eyes. Fake planes proved wrong on 9/11 2001. How long have you had this false idea?

The big clue is!; thousands of people saw the planes on 9/11 with their very own set of MARK1, mother nature issued, eyeballs. Therefore your fake pixel plane is insane. Would you say, only idiots persist with the fake/pixel aircraft video fake junk?

Heiwa

3rd August 2007, 01:22 AM

That is not a rational thought on this topic? What you have posted has no support in reality. (eyes that saw aircraft)

The noses of the planes on 9/11 are made of plastic. They were destroyed first. No they did not fake the planes. Real people died on 9/11 in the 4 aircraft. Only idiots believe this junk you have posted. People saw the planes hit the WTC with their eyes. Fake planes proved wrong on 9/11 2001. How long have you had this false idea?

The big clue is!; thousands of people saw the planes on 9/11 with their very own set of MARK1, mother nature issued, eyeballs. Therefore your fake pixel plane is insane. Would you say, only idiots persist with the fake/pixel aircraft video fake junk?

But why can FBI and FEMA not produce one piece of documented wreckage belonging to the said planes? Yes - they have produced various photos of scrap but no evidence that that scrap came from the alleged planes. I find it extraordinary.

Pardalis

3rd August 2007, 01:28 AM

Did anybody here think about why this PDOPE sock chose the screenname Heiwa? Anybody here know japanese? Apparenty PDOPE has a Japanese/English dictionary. The translation is peace. How much more obvious does it have to be?

The problem is I think PDoh is not a no-planer, a no-brainer of course but not a no-planer.

ref

3rd August 2007, 01:29 AM

Socialservice maintains that the nose exited WTC2 and that the reason for that is sloppy copy/paste of a pixel nose! And if a pixel nose exited, what entered WTC2? A pixel plane?
So it seems that it is possible to fake live transmissions, actually just add one picture on top of another and modify as required. By googling around a little I have found a lot of links confirming this suggestion by socialservice.
So the no 'real' plane theory may have some substance. It was a pixel plane! And then you wonder what gangsters have the opportunity to deceive us with pixel planes.

Did they carry all the plane parts to the scene then, if no planes hit the towers? Nobody saw anybody carrying engine or fuselage parts before the attacks. Every eyewitness on ground was fooled as well. That's strange. They found DNA of the hijackers and passengers on the scene, well that's strange too. How does your pixel explain that?

ref

3rd August 2007, 01:31 AM

Did anybody here think about why this PDOPE sock chose the screenname Heiwa? Anybody here know japanese? Apparenty PDOPE has a Japanese/English dictionary. The translation is peace. How much more obvious does it have to be?

Unfortunately, this guy is Anders Björkman, Swedish born theorist.

Zorglub

3rd August 2007, 01:32 AM

But why can FBI and FEMA not produce one piece of documented wreckage belonging to the said planes? Yes - they have produced various photos of scrap but no evidence that that scrap came from the alleged planes. I find it extraordinary.

Why on earth should they confirm that the debris and various nuts and bolts that without a doubt are pieces of an airplane, belonged to exactly these two airplanes?
Two planes crashes into WTC 1 & 2. Wreckage from two planes are found. You really think someone should have said: - Hey boss. Wait! Are we sure these pieces that clearly belongs to a plane belongs to the two planes we saw fly into WTC?
If hundred of planes went missing on 9/11 I would understand that question.

beachnut

3rd August 2007, 01:55 AM

But why can FBI and FEMA not produce one piece of documented wreckage belonging to the said planes? Yes - they have produced various photos of scrap but no evidence that that scrap came from the alleged planes. I find it extraordinary.
FEMA? Why does FEMA need to do anything about crimes?

The FBI has parts from the planes. The sad part of your post is we know the planes were the planes, 11, 175, 77, and 93, because we found the DNA from the people, you know the kids, the women, the men, the crew, where each plane crashed. You are one real sad person if you have to believe the lies of 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth is made of lairs making up lies about 9/11. The people who got on the planes on 9/11 were found in each location where the jet they flew in were crashed on purpose by 19 terrorist.

What will be your next disrespectful post of junk ideas on 9/11. The more I think about your post, the more I think you are a sick individual.

Unfit4Command

3rd August 2007, 02:03 AM

But why can FBI and FEMA not produce one piece of documented wreckage belonging to the said planes? Yes - they have produced various photos of scrap but no evidence that that scrap came from the alleged planes. I find it extraordinary.

So the DNA and personal effects of the passengers doesn't prove that the said planes crashed?

Do you believe that the said planes were secretly landed somewhere? Can you produce any evidence of this if you do?

twinstead

3rd August 2007, 03:57 AM

What I find extraordinary is the mental gymnastics some people will go through to keep their fantasy theories alive.

Of course there was plane wreckage found, but are we sure it was from the planes in question? LOL what kind of a question is that?

What's sad, is the next backflip Heiwa would perform for our pleasure is if there were a report that matched up plane parts with the actual flights involved. Yup. He would claim they were faked.

Just like I'm sure he thinks the DNA evidence was planted...

So, what exactly is the use in debating someone who simply changes his theory on the fly to get around contradicting evidence?

The mojo of the incredibly morphing theory is strong...

Zorglub

3rd August 2007, 04:23 AM

What I find extraordinary is the mental gymnastics some people will go through to keep their fantasy theories alive.
So, what exactly is the use in debating someone who simply changes his theory on the fly to get around contradicting evidence? You came up with the answer yourself :D It´s extraordinarily fascinating. Like a puzzle.
And at the end of the day I can go to sleep assured that no matter how comfuzed and illogical I am there are those that beats me.

Belz...

3rd August 2007, 05:55 AM

Socialservice maintains that the nose exited WTC2 and that the reason for that is sloppy copy/paste of a pixel nose!

So what ? Who cares what he "maintains" ?

What exits 2 WTC IS NOT the nose. Stop watching poor quality youtube videos.

And if a pixel nose exited, what entered WTC2? A pixel plane?

Nope.

So it seems that it is possible to fake live transmissions, actually just add one picture on top of another and modify as required.

LIVE ?

By googling around a little I have found a lot of links confirming this suggestion by socialservice.

Yeah. If you google enough you'll find a lot of links confirming everything you want to.

So the no 'real' plane theory may have some substance.

No, there was THOUSANDS of witnesses.

But why can FBI and FEMA not produce one piece of documented wreckage belonging to the said planes? Yes - they have produced various photos of scrap but no evidence that that scrap came from the alleged planes.

So you see the evidence but it's not good enough for you ?

I find it extraordinary.

Argument from incredulity.

T.A.M.

3rd August 2007, 06:18 AM

RedIbis

3rd August 2007, 06:29 AM

Heiwa, like all twoofies, assume that if they have not been given a personal look at the items/parts, or if there is not a publicly accessable record of matching the parts to said planes, than the FBI/FEMA have not done so. See in their world, ordinary people have access to all the information in a criminal investigation via googleforensics...lol

Welcome to the forum Zorglub.

TAM:)

So we can conclude that in your world if FEMA/FBI didn't produce any serially charged plane parts then they must have them.

This reminds me of the logic that since we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq this is proof that they are hidden.

Panoply_Prefect

3rd August 2007, 06:29 AM

Heiwa, like all twoofies, assume that if they have not been given a personal look at the items/parts, or if there is not a publicly accessable record of matching the parts to said planes, than the FBI/FEMA have not done so.

Or to be more precise, if there is not an online internet accessable record, they dont exist. If its not on Google, its a coverup.

EDIT: I belive I need more precisison: If there is not an free of charge, online internet accessable record. Truthers still argue that the NIST models are kept a secret, when in fact if you cough up money for it, you'll get it.

/S

DavidJames

3rd August 2007, 06:37 AM

T.A.M.

3rd August 2007, 06:59 AM

So we can conclude that in your world if FEMA/FBI didn't produce any serially charged plane parts then they must have them.

This reminds me of the logic that since we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq this is proof that they are hidden.

No Red, That is not correct.

For example, if by court order, the FBI failed to produce such things, than I would conclude they likely do not have this evidence. My point, is that just because a bunch of googleinvestigators can't find such things on the public internet, and just because such information is not available via FOIA requests, does not mean they do not have the evidence you speak of. Some things are considered not publicly available, and evidence in a criminal case is such a case.

I am sorry that my logic reminds you of something so unrelated to my point, but I guess you did not understand my point.

TAM:)

Heiwa

3rd August 2007, 07:31 AM

So the DNA and personal effects of the passengers doesn't prove that the said planes crashed?

Do you believe that the said planes were secretly landed somewhere? Can you produce any evidence of this if you do?

No, DNA and personal effects of the passengers do not prove that the planes crashed (the could be planted). Only documented and identified wreckage parts of each plane can evidently prove that the plane in question crashed. Evident, isn't it? Any good patriot should agree!

Heiwa

3rd August 2007, 07:32 AM

So the DNA and personal effects of the passengers doesn't prove that the said planes crashed?

Do you believe that the said planes were secretly landed somewhere? Can you produce any evidence of this if you do?

No, DNA and personal effects of the passengers do not prove that the planes crashed (they could be planted). Only documented and identified wreckage parts of each plane can evidently prove that the plane in question crashed. Evident, isn't it? Any good patriot should agree!

Belz...

3rd August 2007, 08:02 AM

No, DNA and personal effects of the passengers do not prove that the planes crashed (the could be planted). Only documented and identified wreckage parts of each plane can evidently prove that the plane in question crashed. Evident, isn't it?

Of course not, since they ALSO could be planted.

Any good patriot should agree!

What does patriotism have to do with it ? Does that mean that non-Americans can't agree ?

Zorglub

3rd August 2007, 08:13 AM

Panoply_Prefect

3rd August 2007, 08:14 AM

No, DNA and personal effects of the passengers do not prove that the planes crashed (the could be planted). Only documented and identified wreckage parts of each plane can evidently prove that the plane in question crashed. Evident, isn't it? Any good patriot should agree!

But if "they" can forge DNA and personal effects, covertly plant debris, CGI planes in live broadcasts, etc. etc. why wouldn't "they" just forge documents and identifications of wreckage parts?

Don't you see how faulty your logic is? Seriously?

TjW

3rd August 2007, 08:20 AM

T.A.M.

3rd August 2007, 08:21 AM

Belz is correct, it COULD all be planted. This leads back to my original point. Unless these googleinvestigators can find it through a "search" of cyberspace, or are personally shown the evidence, or it is made public, they feel it either (A) doesnt really exist, or (B) is planted/faked.

As a result, little evidence can be presented that they will consider valid, hence they perpetuate their own ridiculous theories.

READ MY LIPS!!!!!!!!!!

YOU, AS AN ORDINARY CITIZEN, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EVIDENCE IN AN ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. YOU ARE NOT EVEN ENTITLED TO THE EVIDENCE IN A COMPLETED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION UNLESS DEEMED SO BY LEGISLATION OR A COURT OF LAW...GOT IT???

TAM:)

Heiwa

3rd August 2007, 10:28 AM

But if "they" can forge DNA and personal effects, covertly plant debris, CGI planes in live broadcasts, etc. etc. why wouldn't "they" just forge documents and identifications of wreckage parts?

Don't you see how faulty your logic is? Seriously?

No, because it is not so easy to falsify plane wreckage. And it is so easy to verify plane wreckage.

Take this AA77 at Pentagon. It would have been nice to see a chair with a built in phone, etc. But all chairs/phones (if any) just disappeared. Burnt to ashes. But the FDR survived ... and showed according NTSB a different flight path than given by the 9/11 commission. But the CVR disappeared.

Belz...

3rd August 2007, 10:57 AM

No, because it is not so easy to falsify plane wreckage.

And yet you think the wreckage was falsified...

Panoply_Prefect

3rd August 2007, 10:59 AM

No, because it is not so easy to falsify plane wreckage. And it is so easy to verify plane wreckage.

Well by truther logic it is. If its a documentation of a plane wreckage (eg paper or photo), made by anyone even remotely connected to authorities, then its forged, and/or planted. No evidence to prove this is needed of course, its a default.

How do you verify wreckage?

Take this AA77 at Pentagon. It would have been nice to see a chair with a built in phone, etc. But all chairs/phones (if any) just disappeared. Burnt to ashes. But the FDR survived ... and showed according NTSB a different flight path than given by the 9/11 commission. But the CVR disappeared.

And if a chair had existed, truthers would say "How convienient".

And the FDR doesn't "according to NTSB" show a different flight path. You still confuse their analysis and the animation.

twinstead

3rd August 2007, 11:01 AM

No, because it is not so easy to falsify plane wreckage. And it is so easy to verify plane wreckage.

Take this AA77 at Pentagon. It would have been nice to see a chair with a built in phone, etc. But all chairs/phones (if any) just disappeared. Burnt to ashes. But the FDR survived ... and showed according NTSB a different flight path than given by the 9/11 commission. But the CVR disappeared.

Are you kidding? Are you suggesting that the creators of your brilliant plan, the one that fooled thousands of eye-witnesses and thousands of experts from multiple scientific disciplines world-wide couldn't have faked some airplane parts?

Sadly, I suspect that if matching airplane parts WERE found, you'd be complaining that they were faked, and muse "why didn't they produce any DNA evidence which would REALY prove their case?"

And the mental gymnastics continue...

Heiwa

3rd August 2007, 03:17 PM

Well by truther logic it is. If its a documentation of a plane wreckage (eg paper or photo), made by anyone even remotely connected to authorities, then its forged, and/or planted. No evidence to prove this is needed of course, its a default.

How do you verify wreckage?

And if a chair had existed, truthers would say "How convienient".

And the FDR doesn't "according to NTSB" show a different flight path. You still confuse their analysis and the animation.

How do you verify wreckage?

Everything you find must be properly documented under controlled conditions, etc. You do not allow amateurs to collect it and throw it in a garbage container as done by FBI. Then there is no control anymore. Thus, if a chair had been found and documented properly, a lot of discussions could be avoided if it had a phone or not. Obvious, n'est-ce pas?

The NTSB AA77 FDR animation shows a different flight path than the 9/11 Commission report. One fault, apart from the last course vis-à-vis Pentagon, of the NTSB animation is that they do not correct the altitude, when the plane descends below a certain height (when you must do a manual local pressure correction). If you do this correction the animation becomes even more weird = the plane flies high over Pentagon and cannot chop off lamp posts and kill 100's of human beings, etc. It is very sloppy work by NTSB - and NTSB refuses to correct it.

And the obvious question is: Was NTSB actually examining an FDR originating from AA77? Somebody says the FDR was found inside Pentagon ... but can we be sure?

Panoply_Prefect

3rd August 2007, 03:33 PM

How do you verify wreckage?

Everything you find must be properly documented under controlled conditions, etc. You do not allow amateurs to collect it and throw it in a garbage container as done by FBI. Then there is no control anymore. Thus, if a chair had been found and documented properly, a lot of discussions could be avoided if it had a phone or not. Obvious, n'est-ce pas?

Sorry, my questions wasn't clear enough, let me rephrase:

How do you verify wreckage in such a way as to make truthers satisified? The answer is simple, of course, you can't (and I'm pretty sure satisfying investigoogling truthers is low on the priority list for the FBI). As long as anything remotely connected to the government, say a law enforcing agency of any kind, truthers will yell "forged" and "planted" at first sight and, as you have done several times, avoid at any cost presenting any actual proof of foul play.

Point is, if everything would be published so you could find it when you investigoogle it, you would still maintain it was forged and/or planted. Just like you do when it comes to the presence of debris outside the Pentagon, and the findings of the DNA at all sites. And I see you are working your way at having a go at those pesky phones again. Have you written to American Airlines yet?

And on a side note, you have no idea under what conditions the FBI investigation was and is made.

The NTSB AA77 FDR animation shows a different flight path than the 9/11 Commission report.

And you do know that the animation is not the NTSB analysis of the FDR? You do, because I have repetedly pointed this out to you.

GlennB

3rd August 2007, 03:40 PM

How do you verify wreckage?

Everything you find must be properly documented under controlled conditions, etc. You do not allow amateurs to collect it and throw it in a garbage container as done by FBI....

Well, you're just going to have to cut those New Yorkers a little slack here.

Thing is, on 9/11, there were several hundreds already dead from the plane crashes and maybe thousands more doomed, and two massive buildings in flames and ... well ... I imagine it was kind of hard to follow strict procedures ... what with aircraft landing gear being found in the road and fuselage debris on roofs and all. At a guess it was all - sort of - different from routine work.

p.s. - Heiwa - you never did tell us about your marine engineering experience and list the marine accidents that you investigated. This could be your chance to remedy that omission !!

beachnut

3rd August 2007, 03:50 PM

The NTSB AA77 FDR animation shows a different flight path than the 9/11 Commission report. One fault, apart from the last course vis-à-vis Pentagon, of the NTSB animation is that they do not correct the altitude, when the plane descends below a certain height (when you must do a manual local pressure correction). If you do this correction the animation becomes even more weird = the plane flies high over Pentagon and cannot chop off lamp posts and kill 100's of human beings, etc. It is very sloppy work by NTSB - and NTSB refuses to correct it.

And the obvious question is: Was NTSB actually examining an FDR originating from AA77? Somebody says the FDR was found inside Pentagon ... but can we be sure?
The FDR does not show any flight path. I have seen all the numbers from the FDR. I have them, as you can from the NTSB. The NTSB video animation is a working copy. Working copy, means not finished. The NTSB has the Pentagon turned the wrong heading, by 20 degree. Are you able to think using facts? You are not very good at this if you can not see that error. In fact you are not good if you can not find that error. Do you know what heading flight 77 was on when it approached the Pentagon? The heading 77 was on lines up with the damage at the Pentagon and the impact hole. This means you are wrong.

Over a hundred people saw with their eyes Flight 77 impact the light posts and the Pentagon. Again this makes you wrong.

You did not look at the data on the FDR. So how do you know what the altitude is. Did you know there is data missing? Did you know the navigation data information from the FDR is only accurate to 1000 to 3000 feet, and the last navigation position is over 3000 feet away from the Pentagon? Do you know anything about 9/11?

You are without fact, just repeating what you hear. I have the data you can get from the NTSB or the jokers at p4t. The pilots for truth, p4t, have the DME from DCA. This data places flight 77 over 3000 feet from the Pentagon lined up to make the damage at the Pentagon. Did you know they decoded more data to confirm the FDR is from flight 77 because they saw all the other flight made by that aircraft on the FDR? Did you know they will not line up where flight 77 was because it will destroy their selling DVDs that are made of lies. Reporting the last position of Flight 77 will destroy the lies of p4t and prove there is data missing due to damage or some other reason and 4 or 5 seconds are missing?

You are just repeating lies of 9/11 truth. Try to think for yourself and stop believing anything you can not figure out yourself. Stop spreading lies.

twinstead

3rd August 2007, 05:44 PM

You are just repeating lies of 9/11 truth. Try to think for yourself and stop believing anything you can not figure out yourself. Stop spreading lies.

Asking somebody like Heiwa to think for himself is like asking him not to breathe. He believes every single word anybody says that supports his world view no questions asked.

All I can say is I'm glad folks like Heiwa and Galileo and Ace and Malcolm aren't in charge.

Corsair 115

3rd August 2007, 08:42 PM

Socialservice maintains that the nose exited WTC2 and that the reason for that is sloppy copy/paste of a pixel nose! And if a pixel nose exited, what entered WTC2? A pixel plane? Let me ask this question to anyone claiming the videos of the aircraft impacts were faked:

When the first television ads for the movie Live Free or Die Hard started playing, could you tell which cars were CGI and which were real in the action sequences shown? Because if you can't, then you've got no business trying to claim this bit or that in the 9/11 videos are digital effects creations. If you can't spot a special effects shot on a normal speed viewing of a video, then you've got no eye for spotting special effects. Period. End of story.

So it seems that it is possible to fake live transmissions, actually just add one picture on top of another and modify as required.To repeat myself:

And what about the 40+ other angles of the event that were recorded? What about the many still photographs of the event? What about the reporters and journalists from many non-U.S. television stations and newspapers - why do they report the same things as U.S. media? What about all the eyewitnesses to the impacts? What about all the corroborating physical evidence, e.g. aircraft wreckage, DNA, etc.?

Do you have any sort of reasonable rebuttal to these?

Unfit4Command

3rd August 2007, 08:53 PM

No, DNA and personal effects of the passengers do not prove that the planes crashed (they could be planted). Only documented and identified wreckage parts of each plane can evidently prove that the plane in question crashed. Evident, isn't it? Any good patriot should agree!

So you believe that all of the said planes were secretly landed, the passengers were taken off of the planes by unnamed people at an unnamed air strip, in an unknown area. The passengers were then killed in an unknown way, then planted at the said locations by unknown people without ANYONE involved in the cleanup and recovery of these sites noticing?

Also, the people weren't only killed, they must have been burned also.
"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

'It was the worst thing you can imagine,' said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. 'I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside.'"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm#more

Remember how small a lot of the remains found at Shanksville were? The passengers must have also been mutilated by unknown people, then had their flesh and bones spread around the site.

"As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, [Wally] Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56110-2002May8&notFound=true

If I have what you believe happened wrong, please correct me. I'm sick of listening to people spew BS with NO evidence to back it up, like personal effects and human remains being planted. Do you have any idea how sick that sounds? Who would be willing to take part in that?

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 12:13 AM

Also, the people weren't only killed, they must have been burned also.
[I][COLOR=Black]"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

Thanks for the info/link. So the plane didn't burn at all! Seats, safety belts, etc. were intact and scorched bodies of several airline passengers were found. Thus very easy to verify about phones in the chairs. BTW - what are the identity of these unfortunate airline passengers?

beachnut

4th August 2007, 12:26 AM

Asking somebody like Heiwa to think for himself is like asking him not to breathe. He believes every single word anybody says that supports his world view no questions asked.

All I can say is I'm glad folks like Heiwa and Galileo and Ace and Malcolm aren't in charge.
I think a crew like that was in charge in Germany in 1933.

Heiwa

4th August 2007, 12:29 AM

The pilots for truth, p4t, have the DME from DCA. This data places flight 77 over 3000 feet from the Pentagon lined up to make the damage at the Pentagon. Did you know they decoded more data to confirm the FDR is from flight 77 because they saw all the other flight made by that aircraft on the FDR? Did you know they will not line up where flight 77 was because it will destroy their selling DVDs that are made of lies.

You are 100% right that I use the the 'pilots for truth' analysis/animation of the AA77 FDR data as submitted by NTSB as base for my observations and to me it looks pretty convincing. Why would they falsify that? For selling DVDs? But you can see the whole thing on their web site. They seem pretty serious in my opinion. Many professional pilots suggest it is impossible for an unexperienced pilot to make the last 360° turn while descending and then flying close to the ground the last 500 yards cutting lamp posts hitting Pentagon at an angle, etc. Why would a suicide pilot or kamikaze do this and not hit straight? Questions like that haunts me.