The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[twinstead]

President Obama is doing what the fed tells him, the same as every president ever since JFK had his head blown off for not doing so.
when is he going to close down guantanamo- his election pledge?

You show your ideologue hand with non sequitur posts like this. Ideologues make HORRIBLE investigators. It's all about politics to you; evidence and facts are irrelevant.

 

[silver birch]

Silver birch, you are Wrong. Watching an old copy of Loose Change and buying it hook line and sinker, are ya?

I don't believe everything on the internet which contradicts the official story. you have touched on the real problem. for someone who cannot believe the official story, what really happened? the september clues explanation of the plane hitting the south tower is ludicrous, and there is good video debunking this. unfortunately some people will swallow these crap videos hook, line and sinker.

 

[Oystein]

what suicide hijackers? there is no evidence the planes were hijacked.
I will not mention the phone calls again.

I assume you include the 6 suicide hijackers who have now got good jobs in saudi.

President Obama is doing what the fed tells him, the same as every president ever since JFK had his head blown off for not doing so.
when is he going to close down guantanamo- his election pledge?

Wowowow planting those goal posts all over the place, aren't ya?

And yet we still remember your false claims about a supposed FDNY fore chief, and how you think his bag of lies means something. We can all see how you are running away from that issue.

So care to enlighten us: Do you still think that the authority of Lt. (ret.) Anton Vodvarka trumps that of Chief (active, commanding) Phil Nigro, for example? Or do you believe that Vodvarka wrote facts in his opinion on FF911T? Or would you rather admit you can't and won't defend your earlier position and are going to retract?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

do not accuse me of lying
I called him a fire chief because as a british person I understood the title lieutenant to be a fairly high rank in the armed forces, having served in the forces myself. certainly above corporal, sargeant, sargeant major, and a rank which the lower ranks would salute.

I have a hard time believing someone who apparently doesn't understand commissioned and non-comissioned ranks ever served in the armed forces.

 

[Robrob]

I assume you include the 6 suicide hijackers who have now got good jobs in saudi.

Feel free to tell us which ones and provide your source.

Then prepare to be laughed at for using almost decade old retracted news articles.

President Obama is doing what the fed tells him, the same as every president ever since JFK had his head blown off for not doing so.
when is he going to close down guantanamo- his election pledge?

Which Presidents would those be exactly?

 

[LSSBB]

I don't believe everything on the internet which contradicts the official story. you have touched on the real problem. for someone who cannot believe the official story, what really happened? the september clues explanation of the plane hitting the south tower is ludicrous, and there is good video debunking this. unfortunately some people will swallow these crap videos hook, line and sinker.

Look, if you want to believe Life is the Matrix or whatever, that's your life. But you said there is no proof, and I provided you a link to evidence as accepted and used to convict a conspirator in a court of law. Come on over to reality pal. How can you know that your youtubes and DRG spewage are real?

 

[leftysergeant]

President Obama is doing what the fed tells him, the same as every president ever since JFK had his head blown off for not doing so.
when is he going to close down guantanamo- his election pledge?

Read a newspaper some time, will you? Congress passed a law that said he couldn't.

We have to wait and see whether we can get some grown-up Democrats to replace all the blue dogs and republicons who keep trying to screw up his career.

 

[Travis]

I don't believe everything on the internet which contradicts the official story. you have touched on the real problem. for someone who cannot believe the official story, what really happened? the september clues explanation of the plane hitting the south tower is ludicrous, and there is good video debunking this. unfortunately some people will swallow these crap videos hook, line and sinker.

Give us a run down on what you think is crap and what is acceptable.

 

[silver birch]

Give us a run down on what you think is crap and what is acceptable.

I would love to if I had the time, but I have other things to do.
what I don't believe is the official story of the north tower. why I believe in the no plane theory. if the tower was hit by a 767 the tower shown in the videos taken a few minutes after would not have looked like that.
say, it had a big heavy 767 crash into it. a 767 is big and heavy, but, it will float on water, not only will it float but has enough buoyancy to support the passengers walking on the wings. so, like anything that floats, it displaces its own weight in water. this means most of the volume of the plane is air. so, strip away the engines, landing gear, and everything inside the plane, and the weight you have left spread over the 160 ft fuselage and 150 ft wingspan means the aluminium skin is not very thick.
now, I'm certain if a 767 had flown into the towers it would folded on impact and not have passed through the steel box girders on the wall of the tower, in the same way autos have crumple zones to absorb the impact of a crash.
supposing the plane had passed through the outer wall, leaving the plane shaped hole, which is not actually plane shaped, no room for the tailfin to pass through, the aluminium plane would then have had to demolish the central support of 47 steel beams, otherwise the tail of the 160 ft long plane would have been dangling out of the hole.

 

[Travis]

I would love to if I had the time, but I have other things to do.
what I don't believe is the official story of the north tower. why I believe in the no plane theory. if the tower was hit by a 767 the tower shown in the videos taken a few minutes after would not have looked like that.
say, it had a big heavy 767 crash into it. a 767 is big and heavy, but, it will float on water, not only will it float but has enough buoyancy to support the passengers walking on the wings. so, like anything that floats, it displaces its own weight in water. this means most of the volume of the plane is air. so, strip away the engines, landing gear, and everything inside the plane, and the weight you have left spread over the 160 ft fuselage and 150 ft wingspan means the aluminium skin is not very thick.
now, I'm certain if a 767 had flown into the towers it would folded on impact and not have passed through the steel box girders on the wall of the tower, in the same way autos have crumple zones to absorb the impact of a crash.
supposing the plane had passed through the outer wall, leaving the plane shaped hole, which is not actually plane shaped, no room for the tailfin to pass through, the aluminium plane would then have had to demolish the central support of 47 steel beams, otherwise the tail of the 160 ft long plane would have been dangling out of the hole.

I'm sorry but physics disagrees. You are proposing that several hundred tons traveling at nearly 1000 km/h would just crumple up on the outside of the building?

No. That is not correct in any world that does not run on cartoon physics.

 

[silver birch]

the problem is, people think of the towers as just skyscrapers. ordinary skyscrapers are mainly glass. the towers were no ordinary skyscrapers. they weighed 500,000 tons each, the wall was 2 in thick steel box girders spaced just 18 ins apart, so they were built to survive such a thing.
look at the archive videos of the towers under construction.

 

[silver birch]

I'm sorry but physics disagrees. You are proposing that several hundred tons traveling at nearly 1000 km/h would just crumple up on the outside of the building?

No. That is not correct in any world that does not run on cartoon physics.

where do you get several hundred tons from? the weight of a fully laden 767 is no more than 100 tons.
from a book titled- the worlds greatest aircraft
weights
empty- 191,700lb
MTOW 351,000lb

 

[silver birch]

I'm sorry but physics disagrees. You are proposing that several hundred tons traveling at nearly 1000 km/h would just crumple up on the outside of the building?

No. That is not correct in any world that does not run on cartoon physics.

2 things you may find odd
why were the fire proof flight recorders never found, (never mind atta's fireproof passport)
and
why was the wrecked plane engine found on the ground a 737 engine?

 

[Oystein]

I would love to if I had the time, but I have other things to do.

Oh dear, I should tell you to move back to the initial goalpost and focus narrowly on non-expert CT-nutjob Vodvarka and tackle one of his lies at a time, to manage your valuable time efficiently.

However, this here promises to become more fun:

what I don't believe is the official story of the north tower. why I believe in the no plane theory. if the tower was hit by a 767 the tower shown in the videos taken a few minutes after would not have looked like that.
say, it had a big heavy 767 crash into it. a 767 is big and heavy, but, it will float on water, not only will it float but has enough buoyancy to support the passengers walking on the wings. so, like anything that floats, it displaces its own weight in water. this means most of the volume of the plane is air.

Suppose you could take the twin towers and put them on water, what do you think would happen? Would they sink or swim?

Think about this for a second, before I'll give you the answer in my next post.

so, strip away the engines, landing gear, and everything inside the plane, and the weight you have left spread over the 160 ft fuselage and 150 ft wingspan means the aluminium skin is not very thick.

Ok this in conjunction with this

the problem is, people think of the towers as just skyscrapers. ordinary skyscrapers are mainly glass. the towers were no ordinary skyscrapers. they weighed 500,000 tons each, the wall was 2 in thick steel box girders spaced just 18 ins apart, so they were built to survive such a thing.

You seem to think planes are just thin aluminium skins. They are not. They are designed to resist the dynamic forces that come with moving at 500mph, whereas the towers were onky designed to resist much slower dynamic stresses.

now, I'm certain if a 767 had flown into the towers it would folded on impact and not have passed through the steel box girders on the wall of the tower, in the same way autos have crumple zones to absorb the impact of a crash.

Cars are designed to crumple on impact. Neither planes nor buildings are designed to behave in any particular way when bumping into/being bumped into at 430mph. Before cars hat crumple zones, they just plowed into everything they bumped into. Planes don't have crumple zones.

Besides: The planes did fold! And were ripped to pieces! Folding and ripping uses up some kinetic energy, but not momentum. Even after all the folding and ripping of the plane, there was kinetic energy left to also fold and rip the building steel. At 430mph, it doesn't matter much how "hard" the materials involved are. The physics has been computed. Even if the plane were liquid, it's mere mass would sever the columns. Remember bullets are classically made of dense but soft lead, not hard but less dense steel.

supposing the plane had passed through the outer wall, leaving the plane shaped hole, which is not actually plane shaped, no room for the tailfin to pass through, the aluminium plane would then have had to demolish the central support of 47 steel beams, otherwise the tail of the 160 ft long plane would have been dangling out of the hole.

Cute. But very wrong.

 

[ozeco41]

the problem is, people think of the towers as just skyscrapers. ordinary skyscrapers are mainly glass. the towers were no ordinary skyscrapers. they weighed 500,000 tons each, the wall was 2 in thick steel box girders spaced just 18 ins apart, so they were built to survive such a thing.
look at the archive videos of the towers under construction.

Sorry silver birch but the problem here is not what "people think of the towers".

It is not even "what you think people think of the towers".

Apart from that you are wrong on two issues of fact in the quoted post.

The "steel box girders" were not 2 in thick as you claim at the level where the aircraft impacted.

AND they were not "built to survive such a thing" despite the fact that both towers did survive the initial aircraft impacts.

But those are not the problem here in this thread at this stage. The problem here has several aspects.

First is your total lack of any comprehension of the physics involved. Made clear by your attempt at explaining your interpretation. Some of us here could probably fill you in on the main issues of physics if you were prepared to listen.

Second is that your whole model of what happened is built on a weak premise. Go back a couple of posts and you showed that you know what that problem is. You said "what I don't believe is the official story of the north tower. why I believe in the no plane theory. if the tower was hit by a 767 the tower shown in the videos taken a few minutes after would not have looked like that." The key is in the opening 'I don't believe'. There could be at least two reasons why you don't believe. The most credible one is that you do not understand what you are talking about and, rather than address your own lack of knowledge, you claim that everyone else is wrong. Self delusion won't lead you to understanding. It doesn't really matter what you choose to believe - if you are wrong as you undoubtedly are wrong - you will stay wrong.

Third is your inability or unwillingness to reason clearly and present reasoned logical claims.

Combined with your lack of physics understanding your unwillingness to think clearly probably makes it impractical for us to help you.

So you resort to evasion and red herrings which you borrow second/third/umpteenth hand from some dishonest truther. This rubbish:

2 things you may find odd
why were the fire proof flight recorders never found, (never mind atta's fireproof passport)
and
why was the wrecked plane engine found on the ground a 737 engine?

 

[Travis]

the problem is, people think of the towers as just skyscrapers. ordinary skyscrapers are mainly glass. the towers were no ordinary skyscrapers. they weighed 500,000 tons each, the wall was 2 in thick steel box girders spaced just 18 ins apart, so they were built to survive such a thing.
look at the archive videos of the towers under construction.

Several things wrong here: the box girders were not 2 inches thick and the buildings were not built to survive such a thing.

And that 18 inch gap. What do you think would happen to the bits of the plane that would hit that gap?

where do you get several hundred tons from? the weight of a fully laden 767 is no more than 100 tons.
from a book titled- the worlds greatest aircraft
weights
empty- 191,700lb
MTOW 351,000lb

150 tons traveling at such speeds is still a hell of a lot of force. And force is all you need. That's how they cut steel with water.

2 things you may find odd
why were the fire proof flight recorders never found, (never mind atta's fireproof passport)
and
why was the wrecked plane engine found on the ground a 737 engine?

Not finding the flight recorders is not odd to me at all. Considering the violent disassembly of the planes as they impacted I would be shocked that any bit of the recorders larger than a postage stamp would be found.

And the engine found on the ground was not a 737 engine. If you think it was please provide the evidence.

 

[Oystein]

Twin towers had a mass of ca. 300,000,000 kg each
They were boxes measuring ca. 63x63x415m above ground. So they had a volume of 1,647,135m³ or 1,647,135,000 liters.

So the average density of the towers was about 0.18 kg/l, somewhere between 1/6th and 1/5th the density of water. Steel ships are in about the same range, so yes, the twin towers would very much have floated on water, with more than 80% of their volume above the water.

A Boeing 767-223ER (flight AA11) 48.5m long. It's fuselage has a diameter of about 5m (actually a little more, but getting thinner towards the ends), giving it a volume of about 950m³. It's wings have an area of 283m², and they have a fuel capacity of 91,000L. I think it reasonable to estimate the volume of the wings on an order of magnitude of 150m³. Total volume of plane: 1100m³.
At the time of crash, its mass was something like 125 tons: empty weight is 82 tons; plus 30 tons fuel; plus 81 passengers and crew (6 tons), baggage (2 tons), supplies and stuff (5 tons).

So the average density of the plane was about 0.11kg/l - or 60% that of the buildings - not that major a difference! Add to that that the buildings were much more dense in the core, and we'll see that, in terms of fragility, plane and building were a pretty even match.




In short, you have very wrong ideas about the structure and the physics of both buildings and planes.


ETA: For all of the nitpickers out there: I am not pretending that the density or fragility of the structures is even an important consideration here. I am just showing silver-birch that even his irrelevant claims are wrong, or at least imprecise and misleading.

 

[Oystein]

where do you get several hundred tons from? the weight of a fully laden 767 is no more than 100 tons.
from a book titled- the worlds greatest aircraft
weights
empty- 191,700lb
MTOW 351,000lb

The hilited bits are in direct contradiction of each other.

Please correct yourself!

The actual mass of AA11 at time of impact was near 125 tons (metric). I believe that is 138 tons in the USA system.

 

[Disbelief]

I'm certain if a 767 had flown into the towers it would folded on impact and not have passed through the steel box girders on the wall of the tower, in the same way autos have crumple zones to absorb the impact of a crash.

I know Oystein already highlighted this, but cars are designed with crumple zones while planes are not. Cars have to pass crash standards with multiple different crash tests to meet government regulations while planes do not.

 

[Travis]

Of course the buildings would need to be made water tight before they could float. But that's a minor thing.