Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

[Myriad]

I thinks it's awesome that you've put out yet another angle on the matter. That it directly contradicts Bazant's model, and my model, is even more awesome! It is testament to just how wide open the field really is. (Plus, it adds to the excitement!)

As our field of hypotheses expands and matures, eventually the correct answer will be had, if we do not already have it.

I like this one too. It amounts to: "The more nonsense we make up, the more we can learn by eventually disproving the nonsense."

This would appear to be epistemology equivalent of the fallacy of the broken window.


Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[einsteen]

The passport is consistent with real world accidents. Not faked. 93 has a few personal effects ejected as the plane crashes into the ground in a 2500 pounds of TNT energy event, the objects were small items, not much KE with a drivers license, you can calculate it! So small items not smashed by people and metal can be in good condition, I have found items at crash scenes hundreds of feet away in perfect condition, ejected from the cockpit, instruments are flung out hundreds of feet.

If it explodes in air then that is possible, but assume it is in a suitcase or pocket in an intact plane and that plane touches the ground and vaporizes, then you have to tell me which mechanisms are doing their job.
Aren't we here supporters of "water can cut through steel" like plane wings. If that passport has it's high speed and is part of the impact then it will be hard to explain ?

@All
The video has been corrected. I also said in the video info that those first seconds need to be ignored, but I uploaded it again

 

[TjW]

I've seen the Sandia F4 test in depth, but as a lay man I use the following lay formula

high speed plane + absorbing wall=dust
high speed plane + field =wreckage

I'm not sure what the difference in conditions is if you compare Shanksville with other crashes, like Lockerbie. I have to admit that I also don't know all the facts because I concentrate on the buildings, what was found then ?(except the .....passport)

ps. I'm a Dutch guy, my tax is only spend here...

The Sandia F4 certainly broke up, but it didn't turn into dust. There were advertisements in electronics trade magazines that featured photos from the impact. The manufacturer of a dc-dc converter was proud to announce that not only did its product survive that collision, it still was within electrical specifications. I'm not sure exactly when that was, but it was a good advertisement, in that it stuck in my head. It was a bad advertisement, in that I don't remember the manufacturer's name.

The advertisements appeared several years before 2001.

If a rigid part like a dc-dc converter can survive that sort of collision, I don't see why other small items shouldn't remain intact.

 

[WildCat]

If it explodes in air then that is possible, but assume it is in a suitcase or pocket in an intact plane and that plane touches the ground and vaporizes, then you have to tell me which mechanisms are doing their job.

You've been here too long to know you can get away with the "plane touches the ground and vaporizes" crap. And you also used a faked video in your youtube vid.

Does it not occur to you that when you have to lie to "prove" your case you may not actually have any sort of case at all?

 

[einsteen]

WildCat that is not the discussion, no nitpicking about matter-of-speak words like vaporize please. Assume we have an intact plane, let's say with the maximum speed and it touches the Shanksville fields perpendicular. Alternatively, would a passport survive the Sandia test ? I hope Beachnut will reply, because he has something to say. And that video has already been corrected, minor issue, I don't care about those distinct booms but the rumbling sound.

 

[TjW]

WildCat that is not the discussion, no nitpicking about matter-of-speak words like vaporize please. Assume we have an intact plane, let's say with the maximum speed and it touches the Shanksville fields perpendicular. Alternatively, would a passport survive the Sandia test ? I hope Beachnut will reply, because he has something to say. And that video has already been corrected, minor issue, I don't care about those distinct booms but the rumbling sound.

If a dc-dc converter could, why not something flexible like a passport?

 

[einsteen]

I hope beachnut can tell something about the expected chance.

 

[Gravy]

WildCat that is not the discussion, no nitpicking about matter-of-speak words like vaporize please. Assume we have an intact plane, let's say with the maximum speed and it touches the Shanksville fields perpendicular. Alternatively, would a passport survive the Sandia test ? I hope Beachnut will reply, because he has something to say. And that video has already been corrected, minor issue, I don't care about those distinct booms but the rumbling sound.

einsteen, first you post a video with fake explosions, now you continue with this deliberate ignorance. I gave you this information a couple of days ago. Do you dispute it?

On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner's itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles. Source
​

"...I noticed in the courtyard that there were valises, suitcases, strewn about the courtyard. There were wallets everywhere, broken glass, and then I noticed that there were airplane tickets." FDNY firefighter John Moribito

Along with the letter was a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York!''

...Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars. Source

Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center.

...In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. Source​

(Hijacker Satam M. A. al-Suqami's) passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. Source (pdf)

FDNY EMT Briam Smith: "So we went up to the 10-10 house...I remember there was life jackets everywhere, the yellow in-flight life jackets, and that the contrast of the yellow against all the gray, you know. It stood out."

The discovery of a foot and leg and a cockpit seat led to speculation that one of the pilots had been found, Goldberg said. Source

DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person.

The 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower. Source

If you dispute that these things happened, present your evidence that they should not have. Otherwise, you'll need to adjust your beliefs to fit reality.

 

[Gravy]

And that video has already been corrected, minor issue

Ignorance isn't a minor issue.

I don't care about those distinct booms but the rumbling sound.

What sound should 415 meter-tall buildings make when they collapse? Should they do it silently? You should probably review the videos of demolitions that I provided. In every case the detonations are louder than the collapses, and in every case the collapses make a rumbling sound after the charges have gone off.

I ask you again: what should a building collapse sound like, if not a rumbling? I have been asking this since the first week I got involved in this nonsense, and not a single conspiracist has answered it. So step up, einsteen, and answer the question.

 

[Heiwa]

It is an excellent paper!

 

[Gravy]

It is an excellent paper!

Indeed, but the words on the paper are nonsense written by fools.

 

[Firestone]

It is an excellent paper!

And now it even is peer-reviewed!

 

[WildCat]

Ignorance isn't a minor issue.

What sound should 415 meter-tall buildings make when they collapse? Should they do it silently? You should probably review the videos of demolitions that I provided. In every case the detonations are louder than the collapses, and in every case the collapses make a rumbling sound after the charges have gone off.

CNN has a video of the years implosions: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/29/year.ender.explosions.wivb?iref=videosearch

Funny, the explosives come through loud and clear on all of them! Einsteen, is CNN in on the conspiracy also?

 

[beachnut]

I hope beachnut can tell something about the expected chance.

Survival of object in impacts like 11, 175, 77, and 93 is possible and has happen in accidents with greater impact energy. I have been at accidents where the cockpit is buried deep in the ground, but instruments were ejected as the cockpit was smashed into the ground due to it's own energy/speed. Buried cockpit, ejected instrument in perfect condition. No blown up plane, intact plane hits ground. Photos from pilot, checklists, no prior breakup, these things survived the impacts in the plane and survived during the 0.2 second impact.

I can go you one better. I had the misfortune to go pick up little bitty pieces of two people I knew following a terrible accident. The largest piece of human body found was a partial jawbone. All other human pieces were about the size of a 50 cent piece. Yet, an intact helmet visor cover with the Pilot's name and squadron insignia, unsinged, undamaged, perfectly intact was found among little bittie pieces of aircraft and human remains. That memento was given to the Pilot's wife.

There is nothing unusual about finding pieces of personal belongings or even parts of aircraft that are relatively intact following an aircraft accident. It is to be expected....

Reheat flew fighters; this is kind of very personal, he shares the facts with you.

If anyone thinks the survival of objects in aircraft impacts is strange or can not happen, they are wrong (WRONG). There are no objects on 9/11 that were found that could not have survived.

I have been trained in accident investigation and survival of objects happen. Listen carefully, even in the worse accidents of aircraft and all the impacts of 9/11, things can survive. If you want to think of the worse possible accident with objects surviving, think shuttle accident; I see no way things could survive but my accident investigation say yes, and the FACTS say yes, things survive.

But for 9/11 truth disrespectful dolts, facts are not used, science and knowledge are rejected and lies rule! Believe reality, or believe the lies of 9/11 truth; it is self critiquing and ignorance for the latter. Only 9/11 truth is unable to find facts and understand evidence. Why do they lie?

 

[A W Smith]

Survival of object in impacts like 11, 175, 77, and 93 is possible and has happen in accidents with greater impact energy. I have been at accidents where the cockpit is buried deep in the ground, but instruments were ejected as the cockpit was smashed into the ground due to it's own energy/speed. Buried cockpit, ejected instrument in perfect condition. No blown up plane, intact plane hits ground. Photos from pilot, checklists, no prior breakup, these things survived the impacts in the plane and survived during the 0.2 second impact.

Reheat flew fighters; this is kind of very personal, he shares the facts with you.

If anyone thinks the survival of objects in aircraft impacts is strange or can not happen, they are wrong (WRONG). There are no objects on 9/11 that were found that could not have survived.

I have been trained in accident investigation and survival of objects happen. Listen carefully, even in the worse accidents of aircraft and all the impacts of 9/11, things can survive. If you want to think of the worse possible accident with objects surviving, think shuttle accident; I see no way things could survive but my accident investigation say yes, and the FACTS say yes, things survive.

But for 9/11 truth disrespectful dolts, facts are not used, science and knowledge are rejected and lies rule! Believe reality, or believe the lies of 9/11 truth; it is self critiquing and ignorance for the latter. Only 9/11 truth is unable to find facts and understand evidence. Why do they lie?

Columbia disaster helmet

 

[beachnut]

And now it even is peer-reviewed!

Think he will catch the irony.

 

[Corsair 115]

If it explodes in air then that is possible, but assume it is in a suitcase or pocket in an intact plane and that plane touches the ground and vaporizes, then you have to tell me which mechanisms are doing their job.

Different materials react in different ways to extreme forces. Why is this surprising?

Is the damage done to a human body from a bullet the same or different from the damage done to a piece of steel from that kind of bullet?

 

[uk_dave]

Einsteen, is CNN in on the conspiracy also?

[truther] of course.... unless they give the 'truth' movement coverage, in which case a valiant renegade element within CNN is fighting to bring truth to the masses. Solidarity, bruvva[/truther]

 

[leftysergeant]

Once you do, and refer to figure 1, you'll see the obvious and largely irrelevant point that the quoted sentence, in context, is actually making: that due to the increasing ductility of steel at higher temperatures, taking 0.5% or 1.0% strain as the yield condition, instead of 2%, will underestimate the yield stress at high temperatures, by up to about 25%. The same figure also nicely illustrates the dramatically decreasing yield stress with increasing temperature.

Okay, that is still clear as mud to a non-engineer. Either steel is weakened by heat or it is not. Is this stating that the steel is less resistant to one sort of force, but more resistant to another? If so, which force is the more important?

 

[leftysergeant]

CNN has a video of the years implosions: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/29/year.ender.explosions.wivb?iref=videosearch

Quick side-note on that link. There is also a video there of the aftermath of a car driving into a restaraunt. A cop describes it as sounding like "a bomb going off."

That kind of puts a fly in the twoofers' favorite bowl of soup.