The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[LightningTeg]

With all of this conclusive evidence against NIST that is apparently obvious you would think some of these guys would submit their information for serious review...

 

[Patriots4Truth]

What part of "and additional gravity loads redistributed from the core" (from the section you quoted) did you not get? The "trusses" were being "squeezed".

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to moderated post.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to moderated post.

Takes what into account? Load paths, buckling, elastic or inelastic hinges? The NIST report you quoted explains all this in excruciating detail.

Are you just un-happy that they did not explain it in layman's terms?

Do you consider one mention of "additional gravity loads (on the hat truss) redistributed from the core" to be excruciating detail?

Either way, the paper takes this into account. The dotted line vs. the solid line.

"Two types of loading, a design load at fire limit state and an arbitrarily assumed load for the real situation, were considered. The loading at the fire limit state was calculated using office floor loading, factored according to BS5950t8 (BSI 1990) and BS6399: Pt1 (BSI 1996), of 4.8kN/m2. The arbitrarily assumed load, a combination of the full dead load and one third of the superimposed live load, was 3.9kN/m2. All transverse loading was applied at the connections of the top chord and bracing members." - Burgess and Plank

 

[DGM]

You don't know how you were patronizing?

That was not my intention. I simply pointed to the part of your quote that you need to consider.

Do you consider one mention of "additional gravity loads (on the hat truss) redistributed from the core" to be excruciating detail?

No I don't. The detail in the report I read was much more then what you are describing here.

Either way, the paper takes this into account. The dotted line vs. the solid line.
[qimg]http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/5333/deflection2.png[/qimg]
"Two types of loading, a design load at fire limit state and an arbitrarily assumed load for the real situation, were considered. The loading at the fire limit state was calculated using office floor loading, factored according to BS5950t8 (BSI 1990) and BS6399: Pt1 (BSI 1996), of 4.8kN/m2. The arbitrarily assumed load, a combination of the full dead load and one third of the superimposed live load, was 3.9kN/m2. All transverse loading was applied at the connections of the top chord and bracing members." - Burgess and Plank

This is all about truss loads. It seems that you think the "9' sag" is only due to fire and load on the floor system itself (this is why I mentioned the redistribution of load). The wall buckling was not caused by the trusses alone (NIST states this in the section you quoted). Your argument is only based on half the equation.

Let's cut to the chase. What's your point with all of this?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

This is all about truss loads. It seems that you think the "9' sag" is only due to fire and load on the floor system itself (this is why I mentioned the redistribution of load). The wall buckling was not caused by the trusses alone (NIST states this in the section you quoted). Your argument is only based on half the equation.

The dotted line includes 1/3 superimposed live load - this is the redistribution.

Let's cut to the chase. What's your point with all of this?

There's got to be a logical reason for the extra 5-6 ft of sag. So I'm guessing that at least one truss must of detached from the core because of angle clip failure. What this means in terms of initiation I don't know yet (I'll try to find out more later tonight).

For me, a part of finding out whether 9/11 was an inside job is finding out the possible causes for collapse and I'm slowly working my way through the initiation features for wtc1 (I'm trying to be detailed). I'm no scientist so a lot of the details are foreign to me at first.

But I guess I can bring this discussion to another thread.

 

[DGM]

The dotted line includes 1/3 superimposed live load - this is the redistribution.

Not exactly but, it really has nothing to do with what your looking for.

There's got to be a logical reason for the extra 5-6 ft of sag. So I'm guessing that at least one truss must of detached from the core because of angle clip failure. What this means in terms of initiation I don't know yet (I'll try to find out more later tonight).

For me, a part of finding out whether 9/11 was an inside job is finding out the possible causes for collapse and I'm slowly working my way through the initiation features for wtc1 (I'm trying to be detailed). I'm no scientist so a lot of the details are foreign to me at first.

But I guess I can bring this discussion to another thread.

You posted another answer when you posted (1044) Fig 8(b/c) of the study some posts up. After the diagonal braces buckle both the top and bottom cord go into tension. Sag at that point is only limited by how long the truss connection can hold up.

 

[ozeco41]

....After the diagonal braces buckle both the top and bottom cord go into tension.....

Yes

... Sag at that point is only limited by how long the truss connection can hold up.

...plus what gives first in the race between adjacent floor joists and the failing columns.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This covers wood, steel & aluminum trusses:

http://www.aspiringfirefighters.com/downloads/trusses-defined.pdf

Truss Failure

The danger of these systems is that they can be weakened by fire and heat. These trusses
are lightweight and made from thin steel, so they have very little inherent fire resistance.

All parts and connections of a truss are vital to the stability of the truss system. The
failure of any one element can lead to failure of the entire truss. The failure of a single
truss transfers additional load to the surrounding trusses, which results in the multiple
truss failures.

Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight Construction Fire Research
Project showed that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200 F in 6 to 8
minutes.

When steel absorbs heat at a rapid rate, it begins to expand, twist and bend.

Examples of steel truss failures:

 Cold drawn steel cables can totally fail at 800 F

 At temperatures above 1,000 F the expanding steel in bar joist trusses can
exert lateral thrust forces on surrounding masonry walls sufficient to cause
their collapse.

 Expansion within metal trusses may also cause the bottom chord of buckle
and fail, resulting in downward thrust and collapse of the roof or floor.

 

[achimspok]

... you don't land in that big of a bank angle on a calm day like 911. ... The video reveals no math was used to do the transformation made up in the video. No math means the video is nonsense. Pure garbage with lies added, implying who knows what? What was the point?

The analysis of the videos resulted in the following data:

The math is explained here:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html#players

during the last 9 seconds that airplane flew
xy distance = 2420.57m
z descent = 220.92 m

-> acceleretion = 59.76 m/s²
-> acceleration/9.81m/s²+1g = 7.09g vertical

Meanwhile the airplane not just leveled but turned as well.

 

[beachnut]

The analysis of the videos resulted in the following data:

The math is explained here:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html#players

during the last 9 seconds that airplane flew
xy distance = 2420.57m
z descent = 220.92 m

-> acceleretion = 59.76 m/s²
-> acceleration/9.81m/s²+1g = 7.09g vertical

Meanwhile the airplane not just leveled but turned as well.

Very interesting.

Looks like a 7.09 g failure, short of the Balsamo 11.2 g failure. Was it the data you used from a failed video analysis because you don't have the lens data and perspective resolved correctly? Did you use the same moron math Balsamo used? Did you use Balsamo's method by mistake when you went to where Balsamo was exposed again as a moron on math?

How did you get 7.09 g?

 

[WildCat]

With all of this conclusive evidence against NIST that is apparently obvious you would think some of these guys would submit their information for serious review...

Who needs review when you have youtube? That's where the real science is done these days.

 

[beachnut]

...
during the last 9 seconds that airplane flew
xy distance = 2420.57m
z descent = 220.92 m

-> acceleretion = 59.76 m/s²
-> acceleration/9.81m/s²+1g = 7.09g vertical

Meanwhile the airplane not just leveled but turned as well.

7.09g, did you get help from Balsamo? Something is wrong with your numbers. You are 63 percent the math expert Balsamo is; bravo.

Based on data from you (BTW, your data is wrong, your video analysis is not correct); based on your data... g force for the last 11 seconds.
1.45g
1.54g
1.47g
0.53g - not 7.09g
1.31g
1.57g
1.32g
1.13g
1.27g
1.59g
1.85g Impact. Based on your data.

7.09g would look worse than this flex, if the wing survived.

The 767 is not the same wing, but 7.09 g would be something more than this if the wings were still on the aircraft.
150 percent load limit is required, the 767 at 150 percent would be 3.75
to 5.7g (only Boeing and the FAA know)
Your errors will support the no-plane liars, but not your moronic demolition delusions and fantasies. I found a lot of your research is flawed. Good luck.

The gs I posted, even using your flawed data, are a better match of the visual record, and more, much more than the 7.09 Balsamo like g.

 

[achimspok]

Ah, yes, you are right about the g load. I shouldn't do that without sleep.

So we have average 1.45g during the last 12 sec.

flawed data? No. It's the best you can get by carefully analyzing all the available videos.

Of course, the -12sec are covered by just 2 videos. The more perspectives available the better the data. Why do you conclude the data are wrong?

I guess you are concerned about the change of speed between seconds -8 and -7. Well, that's where the Brooklyn Bridge shot comes into play. That shot suggests a VERY high velocity. I Nevertheless decided to not stretch the -12 seconds start in the distance but left it in the closest and lowest position. In other words, the plane might be higher and further away. It would smooth the curves a little bit.

 

[LightningTeg]

Lol 7gs. Every one would black out without G suits.

What does this have to do with an inside job?

 

[achimspok]

Lol 7gs. Every one would black out without G suits.

What does this have to do with an inside job?

Lol, lens data. I love the Lol argument. What does the g load have to do with an inside job? Nothing. How does the g load argument rebut any of my points? It doesn't.

 

[beachnut]

Lol, lens data. I love the Lol argument. What does the g load have to do with an inside job? Nothing. How does the g load argument rebut any of my points? It doesn't.

Lens data, and you laugh about it.

Ah, yes, you are right about the g load. I shouldn't do that without sleep.

What is the purpose of your lies in your video? Why do you lie in your videos? No sleep?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ
The problem of presision? Speed? Your work proves the plane was hand flown - 19 terrorists did 911, you work was a waste, we knew this over 9 years ago. This video shows how long the pilot had to line up, no fancy flying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU&feature=player_embedded
Pure nonsense is still posted in this video. Again, you proved terrorists flew the planes, known over 9 years ago.

Mr. achimspok, take down those lies and faulty analogies...

Your videos are filled with stupid statements and false statements.

therefore, the Rades-Data-Plane should have reached the 81st floor of the South Tower is about 14 seconds, ...

Dumb statements like this expose your lack of knowlege and shallow research, and are irresponsible.

So we have average 1.45g during the last 12 sec.

We? have an erratic g profile, flown by a pilot, on his first and last flight in 767. We, have you proving (providing evidence) a terrorist flew 175.

flawed data? No. It's the best you can get by carefully analyzing all the available videos.

It is the best you got, and if it is "relatively" close, it proves no remote control, and how erratic the "expert" pilot was. Are you the one saying how everyone called the pilots experts, or is that someone else?

Flying, will you believe or comprehend. Bad flying in a large jet looks relatively good to spectators from a 1/4 mile or more. But inside the jet bad flying is easy to see. If you understood how small an envelope good flying is, you could start to understand why your data exposes a
pilot on his first and last flight in a 767.

Flawed data? You might have the last point correct.

Of course, the -12sec are covered by just 2 videos. The more perspectives available the better the data. Why do you conclude the data are wrong?

7gs comes to mind. How will you prove 175 was level at impact?
Do you understand the attitude, where the nose points of the plane is not where it is going?

I guess you are concerned about the change of speed between seconds -8 and -7.

You mean vertical velocity?
The vertical velocity is what a hand flying terrorists would look like,
if your data is relatively correct, you provided evidence for hand flying terrorists, you debunked the "more" crazy no-plane liars. You are debunking many 911 truth factions.

I hate looking into 911 truther data and work, it always debunks them.

Well, that's where the Brooklyn Bridge shot comes into play. That shot suggests a VERY high velocity. I Nevertheless decided to not stretch the -12 seconds start in the distance but left it in the closest and lowest position. In other words, the plane might be
higher and further away. It would smooth the curves a little bit.

The more I see your data, your work, it reveals it was easier to hit the WTC than I thought it was. Was that your goal?

Now I see how far he was away to line, up, way too much space, even a moron pilot would have a chance to hit the WTC towers with the path taken by 175. Balsamo and his pilots for truth are the only ones who can't do it.
If you do your studies correctly, have knowledge of flying, stuctual engieneering, fire science, you will discover the WTC towers collapsed due to fire, and terrorists did it.

You have delusions on 911, your work proves it; or are you trying to mislead people with a few lies and dumb statement.

 

[GlennB]

flawed data? No. It's the best you can get by carefully analyzing all the available videos.

Given that the 'data' shows a ~100mph increase in speed from -8 to -7 seconds, we can reasonably assume the data is flawed. Saying it's 'the best you can get' does not excuse it from being poop.

 

[beachnut]

Given that the 'data' shows a ~100mph increase in speed from -8 to -7 seconds, we can reasonably assume the data is flawed. Saying it's 'the best you can get' does not excuse it from being poop.

That is funny, I hate to look closer, it can only get worse until he finally drops the moronic inside job lies. His videos are horrible, and irresponsible propaganda based on ignorance.

Is that 4.33gs of acceleration? That will put you in your seat.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The analysis of the videos resulted in the following data:
[qimg]http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/8704/img00063.png[/qimg]

The math is explained here:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html#players

during the last 9 seconds that airplane flew
xy distance = 2420.57m
z descent = 220.92 m

-> acceleretion = 59.76 m/s²
-> acceleration/9.81m/s²+1g = 7.09g vertical

Meanwhile the airplane not just leveled but turned as well.

Wow...if this is accurate, do you know what that means?

One of the 100,000 little links in the chain of logic that leads to "9/11 was an inside job" has now been mended!

Only 99,999 to go!

Better get cracking.

 

[achimspok]

Lens data, and you laugh about it.

Exactly. The lens data won't help you anyhow. We neither look through a fisheye nor any focal length that affect the material in any significant way referred to any line of sight.

What is the purpose of your lies in your video? Why do you lie in your videos? No sleep?

There is no lie. Are you trying to make a point about the failed FOIA information? Crazy stuff, right?
I wonder why no one was able to find the used airplanes in the BTS database. Even NTSB was obviously unable. If you go there today you find any necessary data in minutes. It's kind of strange isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ
The problem of presision? Speed? Your work proves the plane was hand flown - 19 terrorists did 911, you work was a waste, we knew this over 9 years ago. This video shows how long the pilot had to line up, no fancy flying.

Nonsense. The major purpose of that video was to prove that all flightpathes in the entire footage shows one and the same path (no planer claim). A side effect was that the impact velocity obviously wasn't the top speed. The speed is close to 600mph. You saw fighter jets escaping thunder clouds at 600mph? WOW! Since the arabs had no Wescam and allegedly flew by sight you have to deal with "normal view" (approx. comparable to a 50mm focal length). That means a 200ft wide target looks pretty small from a "10 seconds distance". The necessary radius for any correction increases with the speed. The flight path itself proves that the alleged beginner didn't "aim" at the buildings but smoothly waited for the right moment to reach an almost perpendicular impact.

And finally my results prove that NIST was way off (angle and speed) referring to the pencil method of Prof. E. Kausel (MIT). Lens data? LOL again. Go and accuse NIST of lying!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU&feature=player_embedded
Pure nonsense is still posted in this video. Again, ... stupid statements and false statements ... lack of knowlege and shallow research... have an erratic g profile, ...

You are obviously the master of false statements. "erratic g profile" LOL again. e.g. a failure of 10m in the y component of the positional vector of second -4 results in 1.5 G's failure of your "erratic g profile". Proves what?

Says who? The defender of huge NIST failures and trendlines that do not distinguish between horizontal and vertical movement? Your argument shoots NIST on the dark side of the moon.

... Are you the one saying how everyone called the pilots experts, or is that someone else? ... If you understood how small an envelope good flying is, you could start to understand why your data exposes a pilot on his first and last flight in a 767.

Nonsense. It exposes your engineering skill to understand failure if you square it to use it as "eratic" argument.

Flawed data? You might have the last point correct.

7gs comes to mind. How will you prove 175 was level at impact?
Do you understand the attitude, where the nose points of the plane is not where it is going?

It's hard to see where the nose points, right? ...but do you understand that lateral angular trajectory towards the towers do not look like parallel to the ground from any vantage point? NIST used a straight line. That plane would be off for hundreds of meters most of the time in all 3 dimensions.

I give it back to you:
"...you trying to mislead people with a few lies and dumb statement."
You do it all the time with your double standards and nonsensical "erratic" statements.

 

[dafydd]

Lol 7gs. Every one would black out without G suits.

What does this have to do with an inside job?

What is achimspook's full theory?