• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
To clarify, I'm saying I don't think that explanation takes into account the distance of the squibs from the collapse point. One would postulate that if it was a phenomenon due to air pressure then the floors above the "Squibs floors" should be exhibiting it as well, no?

Further, how would the pressure become so localized, so as to blow out 1 or 2 windows and not the rest?
 

Attachments

  • 9-11 Picture7.jpg
    9-11 Picture7.jpg
    17.7 KB · Views: 3
Not to insult your intelligence or anything, I'm simply submitting something which I feel is inadequately explained for skeptical review.
 
"Further, how would the pressure become so localized, so as to blow out 1 or 2 windows and not the rest?"

Well, because once the build up of pressure has a release / exit, the same force is not exerted on the remaining windows.
 
Dazed said:
To clarify, I'm saying I don't think that explanation takes into account the distance of the squibs from the collapse point. One would postulate that if it was a phenomenon due to air pressure then the floors above the "Squibs floors" should be exhibiting it as well, no?

Further, how would the pressure become so localized, so as to blow out 1 or 2 windows and not the rest?
Click to expand...


That's exactly why NIST, in their report, only gave a hypothesis for a possible collapse sequence, rather than producing concrete findings.

Once those damaged floors gave way the entire building became a live load consisting of millions of elements. It's quite simply impossible to calculate where all those elements are going to go.

Seemingly random things just happen.

We can't see what's happening internally, remember. We don't know what has collapsed internally, where it is collapsing, etc.

-Andrew
 
Furthermore, what we are seeing in these pictures is collapse followed by "squibs". In a demolition, you get squibs followed by collapse.
 
There's one thing I haven't seen adressed in all the silly claims LCers make and that is the stunt tricks the pilot would have to peform to make the attack at Pentagon. With a few hundred hours of Cessna flying (and thanx to good friends, some jetfighter/airbus simulator testdriving) I was adressing this on a swedish board where I sometimes debate LCers. Here's a translation of my post on the subject if anyone is interested:

There is a lot of talk about the unreal precisionflying it would take to attack the Pentagon with a Boeing 757. Many claim that it would be impossible for a pilot with experience only from single engine Cessnas and a 757 simulator. In my experience the reported flying fits very well how an unexperienced pilot would behave.

First of all, if you claim that it would take enormous precision to fly like this, you take for a fact that the pilot intended to fly exactly like that. But do we know that? Wouldn't it have been easier to just point the nose down and krash in the middle of the pretty big target Pentagon makes from the air? Why make a 270 descending turn and aim for the wall? Why use that much harder approach?

I can very well imagine that a pilot with experience mainly from slow Cessnas would grossly underestimate the speed at which a jetplane travels and therefore overshoot the approach to the Pentagon. He then has to make a gentle descending turn, not banking to hard since he's unexperienced with the aircraft. Finally he almost comes in too low and struggles to keep the plane flying until he hits his target.

Some of you might wonder why I said "gentle descending turn" in that last paragraph. Most stories claim that he was basically spiralling down, almost going into a spin. Let's do some math to clear that up. First the data we need to work with. Here's a quote containing what most people, LCers or not, agree is correct:

Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. However, the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35 a.m., crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. [CBS News, 9/21/2001; Boston Globe, 11/23/2001] The plane then makes a difficult high-speed descending turn. It makes a "downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn is so smooth, the sources say, it’s clear there [is] no fight for control going on."
Source: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77
Click to expand...


1. To better understand speeds here in sweden I start by converting from miles per hour (mph) to meters per second (m/s). The highest speed I heard someone claim is 500 miles per hour so let's use that.
500 mph = 224 m/s (1 mph = 0.44704 m/s)

2. How far will you travel in 2.5 minutes, flying at 224 m/s.
224 m/s * 150 sek =33 600 m

3. What's the diameter of the 33 600 meter long circle you're flying in then?
Diameter = Circumference/pi = 33600/pi = 10695 m

Let's stop and think about this. The plane makes a turn on a circle with 10 km diameter. Isn't that very far from the spiralling stunttricks that some claim?

4. Rate of turn, ie. how many degrees per second is the plane turning and what is normal?
The plane turns 270 degrees in 2.5 minutes.
270 degrees / 150 sec = 1.8 degrees/sec

Searching google we find that a standard rate turn (yes, there is something like that) is 2-3 degrees per second. This means the plane banked less than what is normal. That leads to the conclusion that there were no high G-forces involved as some have claimed.

5. Rate of descent and what is standard? The plane descended 7000 feet in 150 sec.
7000 feet=2 134 m
2134m / 150 sek = 854 m/min

Recommended rate of descent at an airspeed of 130 m/s is 548 m/min which really doesn't matter. The airplane doesn't care if you fly upwards or downwards. Strain on the construction is caused by acceleration (change of velocity) and the only way to get that strain here would be to make a steep turn (which is not done as seen above). Max speed for Boeing 757 is 590 mph and that wasn't exceeded so we're ok here also (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=252) .

In conclusion all values seem to be well within what the aircraft is built for and the rate of turn is even slower than standard. Very far from the dramatic stunt tricks that some claim. But why would some experienced pilots claim that these maneuvers are impossible? Well, if someone asked me if I thought that it was possible for a pilot like me to spiral down in high speed from 7000 feet, return to level flight a few meters above the ground and hit a ground target, I would also have to say I highly doubt that.
Click to expand...

The only responses I got to this post were links to articles where someone claim it would be impossible to spiral down bla bla bla...DUH!
 
In answer to Obviousman's survey:

1. Sweden
2. No, just reading them
3. Yes, need a log in to view the board and I have no interest in getting a user there.

/Hans
 
Dazed said:
To clarify, I'm saying I don't think that explanation takes into account the distance of the squibs from the collapse point. One would postulate that if it was a phenomenon due to air pressure then the floors above the "Squibs floors" should be exhibiting it as well, no?

Further, how would the pressure become so localized, so as to blow out 1 or 2 windows and not the rest?
Click to expand...

I'd expect it to be exhibited on floors where the air had a direct path to the open floorspace, for example where a stairwell door was been left open or there was a damaged liftshaft door, or some kind of venting equipment. It's worth nothing that in the particular photo the squibs appear to be exactly central to the faces of the building - directly in line with the main hallways in the core:
core-columns.jpe


Perhaps air entering floors would have travelled down these hallways in a concentrated blast, picking up ceiling tiles, chairs, desks, lightweight material, and thrown it through the window directly in the way of this blast.
Though it could also have dispersed evenly around the floor as it entered the open floorspace between the core and perimeter, in which case the central nature of those particular jets is quite odd.

WildCat said:
It is fun watching that forum self-destruct. Like a slow-motion train wreck.
Click to expand...

And we all got chucked off at the last station for arguing with the conductor. :rolleyes:
 
Dazed said:
To clarify, I'm saying I don't think that explanation takes into account the distance of the squibs from the collapse point. One would postulate that if it was a phenomenon due to air pressure then the floors above the "Squibs floors" should be exhibiting it as well, no?

Further, how would the pressure become so localized, so as to blow out 1 or 2 windows and not the rest?
Click to expand...
Hi, dazed.
A couple of points about the "squibs:"

1) Please use video, not still photos, when analyzing them.

2) The air pressure does not have to be "localized." A logical explanation for the "squibs" appearing randomly on non-mechanical floors is that those random windows were cracked, broken, or otherwise compromised.

3) The large "squibs" near the top are clearly material flowing out of the building, not being blasted out. Run the videos back and forth. It's obvious the material is flowing at the rate at which the top is falling. Look up the velocities of common demolitions explosives. You'll see that these are not explosions.

4) The "squibs" are ejected more energetically as the collapses proceed downward. Again, not an effect you'd see with explosives.

5) Building demolitons do not involve setting off random explosive charges here and there on random floors.
 
Obviousman said:
This might be an interesting survey.

1) What country do you reside in?

2) Have you ever been a member of the Loose Change Forum?

3) Do you find yourself currently banned there / unable to access (or view) the forum?
Click to expand...

1.) Canada

2.) Yes

3.) Yes. Banned once as Sword of Truth (for winning an argument with JDX), suspended and had posting ability removed as Captain Moroni (again, for winning an argument with JDX). Now banned as Cpt Moroni as well, deleting cookies to view the forum no longer works either.
 
Last edited:
Jocce said:
There's one thing I haven't seen adressed in all the silly claims LCers make and that is the stunt tricks the pilot would have to peform to make the attack at Pentagon. With a few hundred hours of Cessna flying (and thanx to good friends, some jetfighter/airbus simulator testdriving) I was adressing this on a swedish board where I sometimes debate LCers. Here's a translation of my post on the subject if anyone is interested:
The only responses I got to this post were links to articles where someone claim it would be impossible to spiral down bla bla bla...DUH!
Click to expand...
Thanks for that analysis, Jocce. I suggest that to test this theory, we charter a 757 and fill it with Pentagon no-planers, with JohndoeX at the controls. The passengers will be perfectly safe, because, as JohndoeX knows, it's impossible to make a 757 turn, descend, and crash. The experiment would be done over the ocean, not over a city, of course.
 
gumboot said:
I have been perma-banned too. :D
Click to expand...
Can you blame them for taking precautions? It's hard to believe that with all those sheep around, there aren't plenty of sheeple with internet access in New Zealand.
:sheep:
 
chipmunk stew said:
Well that explains it. I'm banned, too. Well technically I'm suspended until 2009, but we'll all be in the Halliburton camps by then, so I'm as good as banned.

edit: They also deleted the opposing views sticky from the skeptics forum. It's all going according to plan.
Click to expand...

Don't these peolpe have an irony meter ?
 
ob986s said:
watch this video (linked in the LC Nuke thread) they show a small video artifact and claim that this is from the EMP, I am not kidding. The entire video is only 3-4 minutes long, it is a trailer for a larger movie coming out in September. I can not believe how much stupid these people can cram into 3 minutes. My favorite part is their "20 reasons why it was a WMD" this would be great comedy if it were not about such a serious matter.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3211807290597119388&q=wmd+at+the+wtc

edited to add link
Click to expand...

"Sub 100-micron pulverisation of 99% of concrete in floors"

"20% of WTC dust is made up of metals in atomic sizes"

Where DO they get this data ?
 
Obviousman said:
This might be an interesting survey.

1) What country do you reside in?

2) Have you ever been a member of the Loose Change Forum?

3) Do you find yourself currently banned there / unable to access (or view) the forum?
Click to expand...

1. USA (Vermont to be precise)
2. Yes
3. Yes

Are they just banning everyone they don't already know? I created an account two months ago, made one innocuous, non-skeptic post that bothered no one, then just let the account sit. Everything was fine until this AM, when I got the "not permitted" message.

I suppose it's possible they finally figured out my username was an anagram for "Dylan is nuts," but somehow I suspect something else is going on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom