Loose Change - Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blackwell said:
nice work, pgwenthold. Is it possible to indicate the direction each plane took? (I'm not asking you to edit your image - a quick text explanation would suffice.) Thanks!
Click to expand...

I haven't a clue.

That's the beauty of it all. I did it without any consideration of any of the factors of 9/11. All I needed to know is that buildings fell down, and the rest is evident on the diagram.

The big question that I really wonder about is the comparison with an actual CD. When a controlled demolition is carried out, what do the engineers expect for the damage area? This must depend on the size of the building, but how is the question.
 
I just got my weekly "What's New" email from Bob Park:
2. CONSPIRACIES: PHYSICIST'S NEW THEORY IS AS GOOD AS HIS FIRST.
A few weeks ago a cab picked me up at the U. of Wisconsin Physics
Dept. to take me to the airport. The driver began, "You a
physicist? I like physics. You know this guy Steven Jones?
He's a physicist. He proved the World Trade Center couldn't have
fallen that fast on 9/11 unless it was rigged with explosives."
I'd heard it before. Today there's a good story about Jones and
the 9/11 "conspiracy" by John Gravois in the Chronicle of Higher
Education. Seventeen years ago Steven Jones imagined that cold
fusion is responsible for Earth's molten interior. That's what
led Fleischmann and Pons to rush into print with their dumb idea.
Click to expand...

What's New is available at http://www.bobpark.org
 
Blackwell said:
nice work, pgwenthold. Is it possible to indicate the direction each plane took? (I'm not asking you to edit your image - a quick text explanation would suffice.) Thanks!
Click to expand...

Roughly speaking, the north tower (WTC1) was hit from the north (in its north-facing wall by a plane traveling south), and vice versa for WTC2.

The NIST/FEMA public summary shows the impact attitudes of the aircraft in 3D. The plane that hit WTC1 hit nearly dead-on, in the center, wing level.

The plane that hit WTC2 was rolled more to the left (IIRC) and hit at an angle, near a corner.
 
pgwenthold said:
I haven't a clue.

That's the beauty of it all. I did it without any consideration of any of the factors of 9/11. All I needed to know is that buildings fell down, and the rest is evident on the diagram.
Click to expand...

Although, I don't think you can say that all of the damage indicated on the diagram came from the collapse; one of the videos of the second plane clearly shows large chunks of plane/building ejecting quite a distance away, which could possibly account for some of the more isolated damage shown on the diagram (for instance, the small island of "moderate damage" on the right side of the diagram.)

pgwenthold said:
The big question that I really wonder about is the comparison with an actual CD. When a controlled demolition is carried out, what do the engineers expect for the damage area? This must depend on the size of the building, but how is the question.
Click to expand...
Good question. I can't even imagine an actual CD of a building of this size; how would you go about dismantling a quarter-mile-high building?

ETA: Thanks, dubfan!
 
Blackwell said:
Although, I don't think you can say that all of the damage indicated on the diagram came from the collapse; one of the videos of the second plane clearly shows large chunks of plane/building ejecting quite a distance away, which could possibly account for some of the more isolated damage shown on the diagram (for instance, the small island of "moderate damage" on the right side of the diagram.)
Click to expand...

In principle, I could try to identify the damage that was caused by the plane impact and separate that out. If it is listed in the 911 Commission report.

Can someone post the link to the 911 Commission report? I might look into it this weekend.
 
Blackwell said:
Good question. I can't even imagine an actual CD of a building of this size; how would you go about dismantling a quarter-mile-high building?
Click to expand...

Silly person. Why, nuclear bombs in the basement! And thermite! Duh.

ETA: Thanks, dubfan!
Click to expand...

No prob, but Gravy or 60hzxtl or another New Yorkistan type should double-check me on that.
 
pgwenthold said:
In principle, I could try to identify the damage that was caused by the plane impact and separate that out. If it is listed in the 911 Commission report.

Can someone post the link to the 911 Commission report? I might look into it this weekend.
Click to expand...

You probably want the NIST/FEMA report, the "Public Summary" document that has the timeline in it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/
 
I think the commission report has a better narrative, though, and it may be easier to find the information.
 
pgwenthold said:
In principle, I could try to identify the damage that was caused by the plane impact and separate that out. If it is listed in the 911 Commission report.

Can someone post the link to the 911 Commission report? I might look into it this weekend.
Click to expand...
The damage caused to other structures by the planes would have been very small, compared to the damage done by the buildings. AFAIK there were no fires in other buildings that were caused by plane debris. Some larger, heavier plane parts made it through the buildings (engine parts, landing gear, seats), but basically there was a spray of thousands of smaller items from the buildings and planes that covered a wide area. In April and May this year they discovered around 600 bone fragments on top of the Deutsche Bank building (130 Liberty St.) from the north tower impact.
 
A politician in Montréal, named Amir Khadir (Iranian of course), recently said he agrees that there should be an international investigation about 9/11, saying that "we shouldn't brush off the conspiracy theories so easily", but at the same time he says he agrees that the official story of the Al Qaeda attack is right.

So why would we need an investigation in the first place? Can someone point me out the logical fallacy here?
 
pgwenthold said:
I haven't a clue.

That's the beauty of it all. I did it without any consideration of any of the factors of 9/11. All I needed to know is that buildings fell down, and the rest is evident on the diagram.
Click to expand...


Chapter One of the FEMA report includes a number of diagrams. Figure 1-4 (on page 6) shows a 3d graphic of the direction the aircraft hit the towers, and the resulting trajectory of aircraft debris that landed on surrounding buildings.

It includes landing gear on the first, landing cnr Rector and West Sts.

From the second:
Fuselage, roof of WTC5
Landing Gear - roof of 45 Park Pl
Engine - intersection of Murray and Church Sts

-Andrew
 
Pardalis said:
A politician in Montréal, named Amir Khadir (Iranian of course), recently said he agrees that there should be an international investigation about 9/11, saying that "we shouldn't brush off the conspiracy theories so easily", but at the same time he says he agrees that the official story of the Al Qaeda attack is right.

So why would we need an investigation in the first place? Can someone point me out the logical fallacy here?
Click to expand...

He is from Montreal. Nuff said.
 
dubfan said:
Oh, now *this* is entertaining.
Click to expand...

Woah. This is what he has to say ?

Merc said:
Who said it was a conventional building implosion. One where they try and minimize damage to surrounding structures. One where they try and steer the direction of debris.

You really think the would be perpetrators were concerned with that?
Click to expand...

So now it DIDN'T fall into its own footprint ?
 
Wtf? I thought the 'fell into it's own footprint' thing was their evidence that it was a CD? If they get rid of that, that should make a lot of the evidence they have been presenting irrelevant surely?
 
Belz... said:
Woah. This is what he has to say ?

So now it DIDN'T fall into its own footprint ?
Click to expand...

CTer: look! it's a conspiracy, because the WTC collapse looks exactly like a controlled demo.

Skeptic: no, it doesn't. A controlled demo looks different. This looks like a natural collapse.

CTer: oh, yes, but it's a controlled demo faked to look like a natural collapse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom