Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[Pinch]

Lurkers, please be sure to notice that LATTICE is not to be confused with LETTUCE and also be sure to remember the WTC was constructed with LOAD BEARING STRUCTURAL STEEL PERIMETER BEAMS sufficient to support the tallest buildings in the world when they were built.

For the intellectually challenged:

The spandrels that made up the outer frame of the WTC at the 70-90 floor range were made up of 3/8" steel with a 14" box beam behind the fascia steel (clad in aluminum) also made up of 3/8" steel. In between the spandrels was approximately 26 inches of tempered glass. These spandrels were connected by four (4) bolts and light welding. Both data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5.

The aircraft wings and center fuel tank of a 767 holds approximately 23,980 gallons of jet fuel. It is estimated that only 10,000 gallons was on board, with the aircraft taking off with only a partial load of fuel (only what it needed for its transcontinental flight plus the required FAA/Delta-mandated reserve)and burning a fixed amount on its flight. 10,000 gallons weighs about 60,000 lbs (Jet A fuel weighs 6.84 lbs per gallon - I'm rounding here). We then have 30 tons of fuel spread between the wings, which held approximately 1,500 gallons per wing, or 9,000 lbs of fuel per wing, or 4.5 tons of fuel per wing) and a center fuel tank that held the balance, approximately 6,900 gallons, or 41,000 lbs, giving the center fuel tank a weight factor of approximately 20 tons.

Moving on to the aircraft itself, there is another estimated 25-30 tons of dense, heavy metal included in the construction of these jets, from titanium to steel to solid aluminum making up elements such as the wing spar support infrastructure.

Tell us how a 155' long body weighing close to 100 tons in total weight and having fuel-related weight distributions of 4 and a half tons on either side of the centerline and a 20 ton weight directly along the centerline and traveling at 750 per second is going to be stopped and "explode on contact" after hitting against a latticework matrix of 3/8" steel spandrels and tempered glass?

The Truther community has its fair share of idiots, including those ensconced in the CIT and PfT fantasy worlds. This person here proudly ranks right there amongst 'em.

And if you could, please do a compare-and-contrast between what the B-52 hit from the previous video and what the 767 hit. If you can still use one as an example of what the other should have done, you really are dumber than anyone gave you credit for - not that I doubt that in the first place.

 

[jammonius]

For the intellectually challenged:

The spandrels that made up the outer frame of the WTC at the 70-90 floor range were made up of 3/8" steel with a 14" box beam behind the fascia steel (clad in aluminum) also made up of 3/8" steel. In between the spandrels was approximately 26 inches of tempered glass. These spandrels were connected by four (4) bolts and light welding. Both data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5.

How much did the spandrels weigh; and, what was there load bearing capacity, if you know and can easily post this info? If you don't know, there's no need for you to go off on a wild goose chase. Just say you don't know.

The aircraft wings and center fuel tank of a 767 holds approximately 23,980 gallons of jet fuel. It is estimated that only 10,000 gallons was on board, with the aircraft taking off with only a partial load of fuel (only what it needed for its transcontinental flight plus the required FAA/Delta-mandated reserve)and burning a fixed amount on its flight. 10,000 gallons weighs about 60,000 lbs (Jet A fuel weighs 6.84 lbs per gallon - I'm rounding here).

This is interesting, I suppose. Indeed, you're confirming why there should have been an instantaneous explosion.

We then have 30 tons of fuel spread between the wings, which held approximately 1,500 gallons per wing, or 9,000 lbs of fuel per wing, or 4.5 tons of fuel per [/IMG]wing) and a center fuel tank that held the balance, approximately 6,900 gallons, or 41,000 lbs, giving the center fuel tank a weight factor of approximately 20 tons.

That is not a lot of weight and should have proven no match at all for the WTC. Indeed, you're describing a pittance of mass, in relationship to a 110 story skyscraper.

Query, what do you think is about to happen here:

Moving on to the aircraft itself, there is another estimated 25-30 tons of dense, heavy metal included in the construction of these jets, from titanium to steel to solid aluminum making up elements such as the wing spar support infrastructure.

Tell us how a 155' long body weighing close to 100 tons in total weight and having fuel-related weight distributions of 4 and a half tons on either side of the centerline and a 20 ton weight directly along the centerline and traveling at 750 per second is going to be stopped and "explode on contact" after hitting against a latticework matrix of 3/8" steel spandrels and tempered glass?

In the same way as the truck did when hitting a mere concrete barrier, not a steel and concrete skyscraper; i.e.:

The concrete barrier repels the truck, just as the WTC should have repelled and/or caused the presumed jetliner to disintegrate and explode immediately depositing visible debris outside the point of impact rather than a fireball and paper in another place unrelated to the point of impact:

That explosion is utterly in the wrong place.

Even here, the explosion is at point of impact:

The Truther community has its fair share of idiots, including those ensconced in the CIT and PfT fantasy worlds. This person here proudly ranks right there amongst 'em.

And if you could, please do a compare-and-contrast between what the B-52 hit from the previous video and what the 767 hit. If you can still use one as an example of what the other should have done, you really are dumber than anyone gave you credit for - not that I doubt that in the first place.

From an attempt at crash physics, you descend a bit into meaningless, emotional drivel. You do realize, of course, that what any poster posts up says something about THAT poster and nothing whatever about anyone else, right?

I do hope your demonstrated and expressed lack of confidence in your own intelligence will result in motivation to do better in your next post, at least.

 

[HawksFan]

Un. Freakin. Believable.

 

[jammonius]

That shadowy thingy will turn into a horse trailer?

Ha, ha, that is very funny, funny, funny.

Unfortunately, apart from humor, the post adds nothing substantive or meaningful to this discussion at all.

 

[TJM]

About the only substantive or meaningful thing you can add to this thread is a mod-box announcing its closure.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

For the intellectually challenged:

The spandrels that made up the outer frame of the WTC at the 70-90 floor range were made up of 3/8" steel with a 14" box beam behind the fascia steel (clad in aluminum) also made up of 3/8" steel. In between the spandrels was approximately 26 inches of tempered glass. These spandrels were connected by four (4) bolts and light welding. Both data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5.

The aircraft wings and center fuel tank of a 767 holds approximately 23,980 gallons of jet fuel. It is estimated that only 10,000 gallons was on board, with the aircraft taking off with only a partial load of fuel (only what it needed for its transcontinental flight plus the required FAA/Delta-mandated reserve)and burning a fixed amount on its flight. 10,000 gallons weighs about 60,000 lbs (Jet A fuel weighs 6.84 lbs per gallon - I'm rounding here). We then have 30 tons of fuel spread between the wings, which held approximately 1,500 gallons per wing, or 9,000 lbs of fuel per wing, or 4.5 tons of fuel per wing) and a center fuel tank that held the balance, approximately 6,900 gallons, or 41,000 lbs, giving the center fuel tank a weight factor of approximately 20 tons.

Moving on to the aircraft itself, there is another estimated 25-30 tons of dense, heavy metal included in the construction of these jets, from titanium to steel to solid aluminum making up elements such as the wing spar support infrastructure.

Tell us how a 155' long body weighing close to 100 tons in total weight and having fuel-related weight distributions of 4 and a half tons on either side of the centerline and a 20 ton weight directly along the centerline and traveling at 750 per second is going to be stopped and "explode on contact" after hitting against a latticework matrix of 3/8" steel spandrels and tempered glass?

The Truther community has its fair share of idiots, including those ensconced in the CIT and PfT fantasy worlds. This person here proudly ranks right there amongst 'em.

And if you could, please do a compare-and-contrast between what the B-52 hit from the previous video and what the 767 hit. If you can still use one as an example of what the other should have done, you really are dumber than anyone gave you credit for - not that I doubt that in the first place.

Let's also recall this: Noting that the jet impacted a load bearing element of the building is a red herring. The way the Twin Towers were designed, the columns bear vertical weight i.e. the force gravity exerts on the structure towards the ground. The force of the jets impacts were perpendicular to this.

On top of that, let's also remember that Ryan Mackey did a treatment of the feasibility of the jets delivering enough force to fail the perimeter columns:

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf

NIST published some pressure-impulse curves, and with that data, Ryan did a quick but excellent analysis. The relevant info starts at slide 16 of the above link, but the ultimate point is this: At the speeds experienced that day, the impulse that the jet fuel delivered by itself was more than sufficient to fail the perimeter columns. In fact, the amount of impulse could have been enough to fail a much stronger core column. And that is merely calculating the impulse delivered by the fuel; add the weight of the aircrafts themselves, and you most certainly have enough force to penetrate the perimeter columns.

So to truthers out there: There's no need to guess at this, nor is there any need to continue to make flawed qualitative comparisons to other events. The numbers are available, and conclusions can be drawn from them. If you want to make an argument that the jets could not have penetrated the columns, you have to make it a quantitative one. And you have to demonstrate why Ryan's figures do not apply. Otherwise, your argument fails.

</EMH's attempt to help Pinch bring some substance to an otherwise inane thread>

 

[DGM]

So, in the above you give an excuse for not posting a substantive rebuttal to the following claim:




My claim therefore stands as unrefuted.

I also don't play "20 questions" (with you anyway) or "wild goose chases". Therefor your point IMHO is refuted.

 

[Stout]

I have no reason to suspect that the perimeter columns, the ones that were designed to support a "live load" of 20 times the estimated actual live load, should withstand the impact of a speeding jetliner.

By my reckoning, the nose of the plane wouldn't have exploded on impact but merely made a huge hole in the lattice which would allow the fuel tanks ( and fuel) to enter the building relatively unobstructed. I say relatively, because we have no data AFIK, on what the actual crash looked like.

Yes, a military guy once told me that bombs are set to explode a fraction of a second after impact to allow the payload to actually enter a building and explode inside that building rather than on the roof. maybe this is where the idea that the planes should have exploded on the outside of the towers comes from ?

Interesting analogy with the truck and the concrete wall. Do we have anyway of comparing the relative masses and strengths of the objects being impacted to determine whether that specific example is in any way revalent ?

I've seen that same concept used to back up the idea that the collapse(s) shouldn't have happened the way they did, that the force exerted by the falling upper sections of the tower "shouldn't" have crushed through the lower floors as fast as they did.

They're both intuitive arguments, I know, based on what the truther "thinks" or "imagines" should have happened on that day. As interesting as intuitive speculation can be, I often find that that the real world way doesn't work in the way we imagine it should.

 

[Thunder]

its really amazing how you guys give this troll so much attention.

 

[Scott Sommers]

its really amazing how you guys give this troll so much attention.

Apparently he's a real person. One of my Facebook accounts has him as a friend. He reads like an acid head from the late 70s or 80s who doesn't know the 60s are over. There was speculation earlier that he's a medical student, but I'm not clear if a medical students or still in 'pre-med', if you get what I mean. Jammi, maybe you can clear this one up for me.

I don't think he's a troll as much as he's a mixed up kid. He's into a lot of stuff that he probably thinks is alternative knowledge. My reading of him is he's either going to straighten out or end up locked up somewhere. It would be hard to function as a professional these days with too much of that kind of baggage around.

 

[beachnut]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

Sad, you show my fellow USAF pilots and officers being killed as your support for your insane claims on 911. Your insane claim is false. Where do you come up with all your insane claims?

The B-52 hit the ground at slow speed, very slow speed it was STALLED! If you understood flying you would know a stalled speed is slow. the energy of impact of flight 11 was 9.5 times greater in kinetic energy and flight 11 moving at 689 feet per second enters the building with the energy of a 1,300 pound bomb shaped like a 767. You failed to do the math. The B-52 hit the ground with the energy of 138 pounds of TNT, over 9 times less energy, and the B-52 has engines crashing into the fuel in the wing in a stall giving a different fuel ignition pattern. Darn, you debunk yourself while trying to make up insane claims.

The B-52 also hit the ground at slow speed so there is not a big crater. The fire starts on the B-52 and also in the WTC from jet fuel. You just proved with fire dynamics the billowing fireball in the WTC was from jet fuel; you debunked yourself.

What does this have to do with videos which also prove you insane claims wrong?


Please state the kinetic energy at impact of the truck. The KE at impact of Flight 11 was 2,840,000,000 joules. Can you do simple math and physics? Bet the answer is NO.

BTW, the truck hits with 2,266,201 joules of kinetic energy, 1252 times less energy than flight 11. Bad news for your insane claims. You may want to think about velocity squared, and learn some physics before you post more insanity.

The concrete barrier was reinforced, not plain concrete. Sorry, next time try to get something right; please.

 

[Hans]

Yep perhaps not a true troll just a mindnumbingly stupid.

 

[TSR]

.
Your claim that the *broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break* is shown by wiki to be misleading as it relates to such notices:

"Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was fictional ..."

.
That people may have missed the notices does not mean they were not offered, just as I said.
.

Having skewed the facts, you now do the same with the essence of the analogy.

The point is, people believe what they saw on teevee, just as they believed what they heard on the radio.

.
No, the point is that you have offered nothing to suggest that what was seen on TV was not the events as they actually happened, preferring instead to ignore the equivalent of the Mercury Theater's announcements by claiming "this person did not hear them, so they were never broadcast."
.

A jetliner image already halfway into WTC2 and this 'cameraman' has neither flinched yet nor given any indication he has heard what should be an ear-splittingly loud jetliner at 550mph, a mere 800ft above him, which should have been audible prior to impact and half-insertion into the tower. Note, too, that Fairbanks' video, like many on 9/11 for some reason, had no audio at all. Small wonder Evan Fairbanks thought it looked like "a bad special effect."

.
800 ft and several blocks over, with the engines oriented so as to radiate the bulk of the noise elsewhere -- and we are still waiting for you to document how loud it *should* have been right there.

*Then* we can get back to the fact that this person saw it live, and discuss how such a "special effect" could possibly been employed in this case, given the number of people who *did* explicitly see a plane.
.

In addition to that, it has always been my understanding the event is largely remembered because of wide spread panic that has been described and quantified as follows:

"Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".

.
From your source:

Other studies suggest that the extent of the panic was exaggerated by contemporary media.

.

I support the claim DEW destroyed the WTC and there are threads in this forum that elaborate fully on the claim.

.
No, that's a knowing untruth on your part. You make the claim elsewhere, to be sure, but have run from actually giving any of the technical information required to rationally support it, nor any of your claims regarding "range of lethality" or "self-dampening effects."
.

You have seen them, right? I'm not discussing DEW in this thread or in other threads centered on videos of one kind or another pertaining to claims Boeing 767s hit the WTC.

.
How about showing us were we can see the DEW effects in these videos?
.

 

[triforcharity]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203[/qimg]

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

Ok, let me break it down for you.

If a plane is traveling ~500 MPH, how long will it take for the entire plane to enter the building?
At that rate, the plane will travel 2,640,000 feet per hour.

There are 3,600 seconds in an hour.

Now, using simple math, that comes out to 733 feet per second.

Now, since we have that down, lets find out how long a Boeing 767-200 is.

According to Boeing, a 767-200 has an overall length of 159'2" So, to make the math easier, we will say 160"

Plane traveling at 733 FPS and the plane is 160' Overall,

At that speed, it would take about .218281036834925 seconds from the time the nose enters, till the time the last part of the tail.

Now, I don't have the tools on my home computer to find the time from complete entry till explosion, but I would venture a guess and say it was not much more than .3 seconds.

Now, how fast should it have exploded Jam?

 

[triforcharity]

Oh, and Jammous,

That horribly fuzzy screenshot of a dumptruck hitting a wall. Guess what twoofie? It was DESIGNED to do exactly what it did. It is a specific type of concrete that is VERY strong, and is installed around military bases and checkpoints so that a truck cannot be rammed into a building. It is designed to do that.

 

[jammonius]

Here are a couple more title pages to assist in the process of objective review of the ALL 43 video clips:

14

15

 

[Jorghnassen]

You know what the real conspiracy is? The smoke goes up in all those videos, thus Newton's law of universal gravitation is a lie.

/I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but I just had to

 

[jammonius]

Sad, you show my fellow USAF pilots and officers being killed as your support for your insane claims on 911. Your insane claim is false. Where do you come up with all your insane claims?

The B-52 hit the ground at slow speed, very slow speed it was STALLED! If you understood flying you would know a stalled speed is slow. the energy of impact of flight 11 was 9.5 times greater in kinetic energy and flight 11 moving at 689 feet per second enters the building with the energy of a 1,300 pound bomb shaped like a 767. You failed to do the math. The B-52 hit the ground with the energy of 138 pounds of TNT, over 9 times less energy, and the B-52 has engines crashing into the fuel in the wing in a stall giving a different fuel ignition pattern. Darn, you debunk yourself while trying to make up insane claims.

The B-52 also hit the ground at slow speed so there is not a big crater. The fire starts on the B-52 and also in the WTC from jet fuel. You just proved with fire dynamics the billowing fireball in the WTC was from jet fuel; you debunked yourself.

What does this have to do with videos which also prove you insane claims wrong?


Please state the kinetic energy at impact of the truck. The KE at impact of Flight 11 was 2,840,000,000 joules. Can you do simple math and physics? Bet the answer is NO.

BTW, the truck hits with 2,266,201 joules of kinetic energy, 1252 times less energy than flight 11. Bad news for your insane claims. You may want to think about velocity squared, and learn some physics before you post more insanity.

The concrete barrier was reinforced, not plain concrete. Sorry, next time try to get something right; please.

The distinctions you seek to draw do not make any difference whatsoever. By melting into the WTC2, neither exploding, slowing, nor degrading, the imagery presented defies crash physics and is an absurdity.

Look, that is all that it is necessary to admit; namely, the imagery defies the dynamics of crash physics.

It wouldn't do you or other posters any harm to admit that much. It would at least make it seem as if a capacity for reasoned, impartial review of data still exists within those posters who, come what may, are determined to support the common storyline.

Some degree of objectivity will help, not hurt, your cause. Let me help out here.

All who are reasonable can view the following 4 segments and know that a jetliner crash is not being depicted because the deviation from the requirements of crash physics are simply too great to deny or to rationalize:

Nose and part of mid-section in and part of one wing in; no slowing no degrading, no explosion:

Nose and all mid-section in and all of one wing in part of second engine entering; no slowing do degrading, no explosion:

Nose and all mid-secion in and both engines in almost all of both wings in with remaining tip not even bent, let alone degraded and tail section about to also go in intact:

Just about all in, explosion forming on east side and hint of explosion of something, but not of jet fuel and no debris on south side:

Come on posters and lurkers. Let go a little bit and let your objective nature at least allow you to acknowledge that what is seen above violates the principles of crash physics.

all the best

 

[Pinch]

You know what the real conspiracy is? The smoke goes up in all those videos, thus Newton's law of universal gravitation is a lie.

/I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but I just had to

Its so easy. Like walking past a tv on a weekday afternoon and getting captured by the soaps. Reading this jammonious is like watching a train wreck in the the fetid underbelly of the worst part of town. Its so bad you simply can't take your eyes off it.

 

[jammonius]

Oh, and Jammous,

That horribly fuzzy screenshot of a dumptruck hitting a wall. Guess what twoofie? It was DESIGNED to do exactly what it did. It is a specific type of concrete that is VERY strong, and is installed around military bases and checkpoints so that a truck cannot be rammed into a building. It is designed to do that.

The above does not make any difference whatsoever in the fact that the video segments being shown here defy crash physics. That is all that is necessary to discuss. Once again, if you want to remain firmly dedicated to the PLANE proposition you may do so.

Just because there are anamolies that you must acknowledge does not mean you cannot remain a PLANE SPOTTER.

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.