The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[aggle-rithm]

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.


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?


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.
[qimg]http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/426/img00064.png[/qimg]
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!



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.



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



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.

Wow. All the analysis and fancy graphics seem kind of silly in light of the fact that you can't even say what you believe happened on 9/11.

 

[LightningTeg]

Wow. All the analysis and fancy graphics seem kind of silly in light of the fact that you can't even say what you believe happened on 9/11.

Right. Its time to take a step back and give us some concise and coherent information on your theory

 

[twinstead]

Right. Its time to take a step back and give us some concise and coherent information on your theory

No truther worth his salt would even dare try to come up with a serious alternative narrative of 9/11, mainly because an alternative narrative has to explain the eye witnesses, physical evidence, and observations better than the commonly-held narrative.

Laying out a narrative based on an "inside job" for all to scrutinize is a truther's worst nightmare; they prefer to play God of the Gaps with the commonly-held narrative.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Statements like this, make your work suspect.

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?

It is not strange, it is a sign of shallow research and lack of understanding. You are doing what paranoid conspiracy theorists do.

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 runways we land on are 150 foot wide, they are hiding, laid out on the ground. The WTC towers can be seen a hundred miles away, they are standing up 1300 feet, not hiding on the ground. The faster you go the more stable the plane is, and the less you have to correct for winds, smaller corrections. I can line up accurately with a runway 150 wide at 36,000 feet (6 miles) and you are saying a 200 foot target sticking up 1300 feet is hard to line up at less than 12,000 feet.

You are making up nonsense based on opinions made up out of thin air. In your delusoin is it a terrorist pilot or an autopilot limited to 25 degrees of bank, run by the NWO?

The terrorist pilot has plenty of room to line up and impact the WTC killing passengers and fatally wounding the tower.

... 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.

It proves, you prove the terrorists had lots of room and that they were aiming at the WTC towers like he was a beginner. He did not wait for anything, and the final increase in degrees was not needed to hit the WTC.

How did you come up with 7.09g?

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!

This is where engineering would come in handy; if you are right it makes zero difference.

NIST never said the planes did not fly since December, you are telling lies. You spread lies because you don't understand things.

NIST estimated the damage to the WTC. So? What was your goal?

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?

Are you calling your data false? (square stuff?, you got 7.09g)
Based on your data. The profile shows erratic control of the plane, ham-fisted terrorist flying poorly, erratically. Bad flying looks fine from outside, but you would not understand.

1.45, 1.54, 1.47, 0.53, 1.31, 1.57, 1.32, 1.13, 1.27, 1.59, 1.85 gs.
Erratic G profile from your data. Extra credit part.

The final bank increase, due to a first and last flight pilot. Erratic. Did this terrorist pilot have a FAA commercial license?

Erratic G profile from your data. Go ahead attack math and aerodynamics.

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.

? What was NIST's goal? What did NIST get wrong that makes a difference?

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

Your data shows erratic flight. Your nonsense statement is nonsense.

Square what? Are you saying the g is not erratic? Do you know how physically annoying that profile would be based on your data?

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.

What was the goal of NIST?

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.

Does this mean there is a 4.33 g acceleration at second -7, -8? So your data right? And you are attacking NIST who had goals, and your work has zero practical goals.

You make up lies.

... 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.

This is Nonsense. Are you defending it with 4.33g acceleration because you can't do video analysis correctly?

Your inside job is falling apart at 7.09g.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

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


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.

That appears to be the only way to get 9 ft of "sag". But I decided to graph deflection and besides going backwards in time, an instantaneous drop of that proportion after that "2nd compression diagonal buckles" is absurd.

I'm not sure why the dotted line uses "1/3" superimposed live load (redistributed load). Nonetheless, the dotted line is supposed to represent the "arbitrary assumed load for the situation".

--------------------

achimspok appears to have made a video of a much more logical way to get the 9 ft. of "sag" required to explain the 55 inches of inward bowing - because standard fire isn't working with what we know about the collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3CFlRVMs8g

 

[dafydd]

Wow. All the analysis and fancy graphics seem kind of silly in light of the fact that you can't even say what you believe happened on 9/11.

None of them ever do.

 

[achimspok]

Statements like this, make your work suspect.

Nonsense. It shows your understanding lens data and the effect of perspective alignment. If the plane disappears behind the Empire State building using a 400mm lens then the plane will disappear behind the Empire State building using a 15mm lens a well. Is it plausible for you?

It is not strange, it is a sign of shallow research and lack of understanding. You are doing what paranoid conspiracy theorists do.

OK, how shallow was the research of NTSB and how much does NTSB lack of the understanding of their own data?

Obviously they have a huge problem with flights against the sun.

The runways we land on are 150 foot wide, they are hiding, laid out on the ground.

...using glideslopes and flashing lights and GPS and autoland ...

The WTC towers can be seen a hundred miles away, they are standing up 1300 feet, not hiding on the ground.

...depends on perspective.

Btw, runways are usually not surrounded by high rise buildings.

The faster you go the more stable the plane is, and the less you have to correct for winds, smaller corrections. I can line up accurately with a runway 150 wide at 36,000 feet (6 miles) and you are saying a 200 foot target sticking up 1300 feet is hard to line up at less than 12,000 feet.

The limiting speed (VNE, velocity not exceed) for a Boeing 767 is 954 km/h (593 mph / 516 knots) at 35,000 ft (10,667 m). The maximum cruising speed is about 563 mph (906 km/h or 490 knots). The 'normal' cruising speed is about 530 mph (853 km/h or 460 knots). Below 10,000 ft, VNE = 250 knots or 287.7 mph (463 km/h).

Assuming that UA175 flew at 500 knots and...

Let's see what the Chief of flight operations NASA Langley describes:

You keep lying. "...making up nonsense based on opinions made up out of thin air." ...always followed by a series of your paranoid BS.

In your delusoin is it a terrorist pilot or an autopilot limited to 25 degrees of bank, run by the NWO?

In your paranoid view the only NWO option was HDG SEL mode? I can't find any other bank limitations. Even the HDG HOLD allows 30°, Mr. Super Pilot! "...making up nonsense based on opinions made up out of thin air."

The terrorist pilot has plenty of room to line up ...

So whyTF he did not? Why is that "terrorist pilot" waiting + leaving just enough space for a final maneuver into a close to perpendicular impact.

Your sloppy NIST is approximately right for a large distance. The plane came in at an angle of about 15° and 6°

Nonsense. ...and it didn't hit at that angle.

red = sloppy NIST
green = my

Now add the final banking and tell me where the plane was 10 sec prior to the hit!

It proves, you prove the terrorists had lots of room and that they were aiming at the WTC towers like he was a beginner. He did not wait for anything, and the final increase in degrees was not needed to hit the WTC.

You are the beginner, that's for sure now. The NIST plane would have passed above the head of Luc Courchesne. In the Alonso shot it would be in the 5 sec position but more tham 8 seconds away. Hence, NIST would have to "estimate" a much higher speed than I.

It came in on a path straight towards the bottom of One Liberty Plaza.

4 sec prior to the impact it was approx. parallel to the NIST angle and would have missed the tower. May be the wing would have touched the SE corner. Add 9m/s wind speed. You even see that the nose didn't "aim" at the tower. The aiming of the fuselage was the opposite then expectable. The nose would point more towards the north tower to nullify the effect of the wind.

How did you come up with 7.09g?

I already told you. 5 o'clock in the morning. One click in Excel brought the horizontal distance into the formula instead of the vertical distance. I already excused for that fatal failure. Shall I kiss your shoes?

Think about the angle. This is where engineering would come in handy.

NIST never said the planes did not fly since December, you are telling lies.

I never said that NIST said. I cited the response to a FOIA request. Hence, r, you are telling lies. ...and obviously you don't understand things.

NIST estimated the damage to the WTC. So? What was your goal?

I already told you.

Are you calling your data false?

No, I said there is a failure. I would say less than half a wing length during the last 6 seconds. Quite good enough to understand the flight path + the impact angel + the impact speed and even the speed during the last seconds.
YOU squared the failure claiming it would be a sign of "erratic flight".
That's your moronic delusional "enineering". Your "most of the time close" NIST plane is a line - zero eratic - staight like a missle - but wrong. What's your goal?

Based on your data....

OMG you are really pathetic.

Go, take your T-38 and get UBL!

 

[aggle-rithm]

PGPN.

("Pretty graphics prove nothing")

 

[twinstead]

achimspok your graphs and graphics mean nothing. They're just pretty little bits of conjecture and wishful thinking. Just because YOU think you are right doesn't mean you actually are. No offense, but pardon me if I require a second opinion, okay.

 

[chipmunk stew]

achimspok posts lots of graphics and video showing a sloppy approach that almost missed.

Inside Job!!!!

 

[DGM]

That appears to be the only way to get 9 ft of "sag". But I decided to graph deflection and besides going backwards in time, an instantaneous drop of that proportion after that "2nd compression diagonal buckles" is absurd.

I'm not sure why the dotted line uses "1/3" superimposed live load (redistributed load). Nonetheless, the dotted line is supposed to represent the "arbitrary assumed load for the situation".
[qimg]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1577/deflection3.png[/qimg]
--------------------

achimspok appears to have made a video of a much more logical way to get the 9 ft. of "sag" required to explain the 55 inches of inward bowing - because standard fire isn't working with what we know about the collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3CFlRVMs8g

There's a bit of a problem with your graphing. I included a quote that should point to this error.

MODELLING
Typical occupancy floors of both WTC 1 & 2 were composed of one-way long-span and short-span
composite trusses and two-way corner areas. In the long-span area dual composite trusses, 18.3m in
length and 752.8mm in depth, were spaced 2.0m apart. A concrete slab cast onto profiled metal
decking was used. Double angles 50.8mm x 38.1mm x 6.4mm (A50) and 76.2mm x 50.8mm x 9.4mm
(A36) were used for the top and bottom chords. A solid round bar of 29.0mm diameter (A50) was used
for the first web diagonal member. The remaining web diagonals were formed from solid round bar of
27.7mm diameter (A46). The steel decking was placed underneath the lightweight concrete
(20.7N/mm2) slab comprising a 101.3mm topping and 38.1mm ribs. The vertical floor-to-floor spacing
was 3.7m. For this study, one half of the composite truss was numerically modelled with and without a
supporting column

Can you spot the problem?

ETA: If you can't spot it don't be afraid to ask. That's how we learn (and I'm not being condescending).

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I'm not sure of what you are trying to get at, so please feel free to tell me.

 

[GlennB]

PGPN.

("Pretty graphics prove nothing")

And all this from a person who got his wind direction way out because "It's hard to draw a straight line with a mouse"

 

[DGM]

You do realize that they only modeled half the truss, right?

"For this study, one half of the composite truss was numerically modelled with and without a supporting column."

From Fig 1.

and.......? your point is? lol

I'm not sure of what you are trying to get at, so please feel free to tell me.

I should have seen this earlier (before I posted), triforcharity already mentioned this and I missed that you did not understand. Your trying to fit your real life 9' directly into a half truss length model. Essentially the data already shows what your looking for.

I didn't actually see what your confusion was until you did the graph (so it wasn't a total waste)

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure of what you are trying to get at, so please feel free to tell me.

Do you think the length of a truss has any relationship to how much it will sag when it fails due to heat or load?

It appears you do not think there is any relationship, and this is why you are so confused here.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I should have seen this earlier (before I posted), triforcharity already mentioned this and I missed that you did not understand. Your trying to fit your real life 9' directly into a half truss length model. Essentially the data already shows what your looking for.

I didn't actually see what your confusion was until you did the graph (so it wasn't a total waste)

The vertical deflection, or "sag" in this case, is still measured from the the center of the truss, 9 meters in (the truss is 18 meters long). The loadings of 3.9kN/m2 (to simulate probable actual condition) is the same whether or not only half the truss was modeled. I'm not confused; whether or not half or full truss is modeled is irrelevant to this study.

 

[DGM]

The vertical deflection, or "sag" in this case, is still measured from the the center of the truss, 9 meters in (the truss is 18 meters long). The loadings of 3.9kN/m2 (to simulate probable actual condition) is the same whether or not only half the truss was modeled. I'm not confused; whether or not half or full truss is modeled is irrelevant to this study.

I'm sorry you are correct in this regard.

The 9' deflection was in the area of wall buckling. The problem is your using only the "COMPOSITE TRUSS WITH A SUPPORTING COLUMN" data where you should be using a combination of both supporting and non-supporting due to damage. If you notice in (figure 5) the slope is basically straight down.


ETA: I'm really off today! You should be using figure 5 exclusively because it show the effect without "horizontal restraint". In other words "the columns were buckling"

Again sorry for the confusion.

 

[DGM]

For clarity:fig 5

THE UNRESTRAINED COMPOSITE TRUSS (Fig 5)
After the aircraft impact on WTC1 it was observed that several floors were simultaneously exposed to a
fire caused by the widely-spread jet fuel. In this situation the top and bottom floors in this area might
still retain horizontal restraint stiffness, provided by the supporting column, as with a single-storey
compartment fire model. However, it is likely that the horizontal restraint to the intermediate storeys
would be much lower or non-existent. In order to understand the behaviour of the middle floors in fire,
a simply supported composite truss, with and without protection,

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

 

[George 152]

Oh dear.
Who to accept as an authority ?
Beachnut who has had a career in aviation or achimspok who posts pretty pictures...

Guess who I'm going with and pretty pictures don't make it !

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I'm sorry you are correct in this regard.

The 9' deflection was in the area of wall buckling. The problem is your using only the "COMPOSITE TRUSS WITH A SUPPORTING COLUMN" data where you should be using a combination of both supporting and non-supporting due to damage. If you notice in (figure 5) the slope is basically straight down.

Right, the 9 ft of deflection corresponds to 9 ft of sag but I can't and shouldn't use the words interchangeably.

But I believe you are wrong about using figure 5 over figure 6. The latter provides a better estimate because I believe you are supposed to use "COMPOSITE TRUSS WITH A SUPPORTING COLUMN" data. I added in the yellow line and orange circles to this graph so that it lines up with the 55 inch bowing on the south wall:

ETA: I'm really off today! You should be using figure 5 exclusively because it show the effect without "horizontal restraint". In other words "the columns were buckling"

I don't know what you are getting at here. The perimeter columns were buckling/bowing because of the "sag". The yellow circle in the following picture shows the place where the 55 inch bowing/buckling occurred.

..

The only problem, it seems, with using these graphs is that the north end of the truss is attached to a perimeter column that has suffered a good bit of damage from the plane crash.

However, in the first picture of this post you can tell that there is a lot of supporting columns attached to the truss that I'm concerned with. I suspect that fig 6 is still a decent estimate.