Loose Change - Part IV

[IronSnot]

0 for 6. Your psychic skills need honing!

Memory probably. I must have got you mixed up with one of the others here. Probably Arkan. I'll have another look.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Memory probably. I must have got you mixed up with one of the others here. Probably Arkan. I'll have another look.

Self loathing Canadian, young, sexually repressed, Tory lover, fantasy games developer.

Hrm, nope. Happily married American. Sexually liberated. Politically unaffiliated (social liberal, fiscal conservative, governance libertarian), and DBA for a coin-op video game manufacturer (I'll give you a 1/2 pt here since you got the right industry).

 

[IronSnot]

That was quick.

I better find out who it is before I have any more guesses.

 

[Gravy]

Memory probably. I must have got you mixed up with one of the others here. Probably Arkan. I'll have another look.

I'm honored by the comparison, although I don't think your description fits Arkan either. I certainly haven't found him to be sexually repressed. He's been sexing up this joint left and right, so much so that sometimes I feel bukkaked with smart.

 

[IronSnot]

Actually the sexually repressed was a bit of a go at your

"do me next, do me next"

1/6?

 

[Woody-]

And as I have already said, also a couple of pages back, if it were really that clear-cut, then the possibility of partial collapse of buildings becomes very puzzling. Unless you would like to suggest that no partial collapse has ever occurred, for which reason the possibility is so remote that we don't need to reckon with it.

There has been no partial collapse of a building of the same size and design of the WTC towers. The only two collapses of this type of building led to a global collapse. Any partial collapse of any other type of building tells you nothing about how the WTC towers fell.

 

[Gravy]

Actually the sexually repressed was a bit of a go at your

"do me next, do me next"

1/6?

"Do me next" would be the opposite of sexually repressed. You must have missed this post. Can't blame you for being confused, though. Many people here share similar qualities, sanity and critical thinking skills foremost.

 

[Woody-]

Brumsen, here are some quotes from credible sources about the chances of the WTC towers globally collapsing once any collapse started.


http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/

When each tower was built, approximately 4 x 1011 joules of potential energy was stored. This was quickly converted into kinetic energy with each collapse (FEMA 2.27). As each floor collapsed, all of the floors above accelerated and fell on the floor below, and so on, which means that the towers fell faster and faster and the amount of energy traveling downward grew exponentially. As each building collapsed, the perimeter walls seemed to have peeled off and fallen away from the buildings. The collapses left tall, freestanding portions of the exterior wall and interior columns, which could not support themselves and therefore buckled at the connections and collapsed (2.27).

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B7FEB-A88C-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21&pageNumber=4&catID=4

"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection," Connor continued. "When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down." This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.

As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way, starting an unstoppable sequence. The dynamic forces are so large that the downward motion becomes unstoppable."

Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings’ design loads by at least an order of magnitude. He also performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. "The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended,"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/011204072931.htm

Hamburger and his colleagues have not yet determined which of these scenarios occurred on Sept. 11, but there is little doubt that the collapse of the upper floors of the WTC towers brought down both structures.

''Think of the impact of dropping a 25-story building straight down,'' Hamburger told the audience. ''It was like a pile driver, which is why it collapsed as it did.''

http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&isa=Category

Some observers have wondered why the buildings telescoped down, instead of overturning and rolling to their side like a tree. Unlike trees which are solid, rigid structures, buildings such as the WTC towers are mostly open space (offices, staircases, elevator shafts, etc.). Indeed, a typical building is 90% air, and only 10% solid material. Thus, it is not surprising that a 110- story structure should collapse into 11 stories of rubble (actually less, because the rubble spreads out laterally, and parts are compressed into the foundation).



In addition, the towers did not fail from the bottom up, but from the top down. For a portion of the tower to roll to either side, it must first acquire angular momentum, which can only occur if the structure can pivot long enough about a stable plane (e.g. the stump in a tree). However, the forces concentrated near the pivoting area would have been so large that the columns and beams in the vicinity of that area would simply have crushed and offered no serious support permitting rolling. Also, both building sections above the crash site were not tall enough to significantly activate an inverted pendulum effect. Thus, the upper part could do nothing but simply fall down onto the lower part, crushing it. While photographic evidence shows the upper part of the South Tower to be inclined just as it began to collapse, it may not necessarily have rolled to the side, but instead fallen down onto the lower floors in a tilted position. (A careful review of collapse videos and additional photos should help clarify this contention.) Indirect evidence points to minimal vertical resistance to telescoping or pancaking of either tower: the duration of the collapses was nearly the same as that of an object in free fall, while any serious resistance would have slowed down the collapse. In essence then, the towers did not collapse like trees because the structures, despite their strength, were too fragile to sustain such motions.

I saved the best for last, an interview with Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011119fa_FACT

only one said that he knew immediately, upon learning, from TV, of the planes' hitting the buildings, that the towers were going to fall. This was Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition Incorporated, a Maryland-based family business that specializes in reducing tall buildings to manageable pieces of rubble. "Within a nanosecond," he told me. "I said, 'It's coming down. And the second tower will fall first, because it was hit lower down.' "

And you've got these floor trusses, made of fairly thin metal, and fire protection has been knocked off most of them by the impact. And you have all this open space—clear span from perimeter to core—with no columns or partition walls, so the airplane is going to skid right through that space to the core, which doesn't have any reinforced concrete in it, just sheetrock covering steel, and the fire is going to spread everywhere immediately, and no fire-protection systems are working—the sprinkler heads shorn off by the airplanes, the water pipes in the core are likely cut. So what's going to happen? Floor A is going to fall onto floor B, which falls onto floor C; the unsupported columns will buckle; and the weight of everything above the crash site falls onto what remains below—bringing loads of two thousand pounds per square foot, plus the force of the impact, onto floors designed to bear one hundred pounds per square foot. It has to fall."

Loizeaux said that when he demolishes buildings he sometimes tries to make the top twist and fall sideways, which can generate enough "reverse thrust" to push the rest of the building the other way. "The top part of the south tower almost did fall off, which is what would happen in most buildings. Did you see how, when that top part started to fall, it began to rotate? If that piece had kept going out, it probably would have pushed the rest of the building the other way as it fell. But those long trusses saved the day—they gave way, guided that top downward just like a bullet through the barrel of a gun, and mitigated the damage." He added, "Let me tell you something. Far more people would have died if those buildings had been built differently. A conventional frame building would have fallen immediately—no question. Only a tube structure could have taken that hit and survived."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...As for ignore the engineering comminity, well you obviously ignored my profile as I`m an undergraduate mechanical engineer in Oxford. I am part of the engineering establishment and am willing to take head on ANY challenge you or anyone else can provide on any mathematical basis (your treading on thin ice there as my maths score was 95% last semester).

So BRING IT ON!

Give me your best and I`ll confidently cut you both to shreds using materials science, logic, mathematics and physics before your fingers have finished typing.

Come on and HIT ME!!

Materials science, logic, mathematics and physics all support the conventional wisdom regarding 9/11.

An undergrad student mechanical engineer proclaiming expertise in this matter, eh? Ask him if he'll consult with a pre-med student to discuss his impending open-heart surgery.

 

[Obviousman]

One general point to make about mission failure. Of course, they had the Pentagon as a specific target but if they missed, could the whole thing be dismissed as failure? From the terrorist point of view, crashing an aircraft into any part of the capital city of your enemy must be considered a successful mission. From the moment they gained control of the aircraft, they couldn't lose.

That's close to my own personal theory.

I haven't researched it a great deal, so feel free to point out the flaws.

I don't think the Pentagon was the original target; I think it was the White House.

As people have said, using the FMS to fly you to your target is easy. Programming it with a correct descent rate to intercept your target is more difficult. I think Hanjour found himself too high to hit the White House, having not started a descent early enough and maybe being unwilling to push a higher rate of descent. Making a snap 'D' he turned to make another run on it.

This is where I'm having a problem with my 'pet' theory: if Hanjour was in the left seat (normal pilot position), I would expect him to make a LEFT turn as he overflew Ronald Reagan Airport, in order to acquire / keep the target visual. Instead he made a right turn.

It is possible that the decision was made at this point to try for the Pentagon, which would have been clearly visible. Perhaps he was in the right seat - we can never be sure.

As was pointed out, hitting anything at all would have been considered a success. The aircraft had been hijacked, and if they simply crashed it, killing all on board, that would have been a success. Crashing into a populous area, killing people on the ground, would have been better. Hitting a recognised structure would have been marvellous.

The descending turn set them up for an approach to the Pentagon. Hand flying the aircraft, he aims for the Pentagon. Due to the high speed of the aircraft, Hanjour realises shortly before impact that he is going to undershoot the target. He flattens the approach..... and the rest is history.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Due to the high speed of the aircraft, Hanjour realises shortly before impact that he is going to undershoot the target. He flattens the approach..... and the rest is history.

ive actually heard the opposite described

as he leveled off with the nose pointed at the pentagon (using the center courtyard as a "bullseye") he pushed the engines to full throttle, this increase in speed caused an increase in lift and he realized he would overshoot the target, so he pushed the nose down, overcompensating and hitting the outside wall at ground level

i guess either way is equally likely....was hanjour one of the "still alive" hijackers? maybe we can ask him

 

[Brainster]

As was pointed out, hitting anything at all would have been considered a success. The aircraft had been hijacked, and if they simply crashed it, killing all on board, that would have been a success. Crashing into a populous area, killing people on the ground, would have been better. Hitting a recognised structure would have been marvellous.

In many ways the Pentagon was the worst target the plane could have hit, because it was such a reinforced structure. Fewer people died in the Pentagon than in OKC. Symbolically I'm sure it was important to Al Qaeda, but it was a lousy choice.

 

[gumboot]

In many ways the Pentagon was the worst target the plane could have hit, because it was such a reinforced structure. Fewer people died in the Pentagon than in OKC. Symbolically I'm sure it was important to Al Qaeda, but it was a lousy choice.

Congress would have been a real pearl.

As I understand it wasn't evacuated until after the Pentagon was hit.

-Andrew

 

[chran]

What I don't understand is why the pilot just didn't continue on to Congress or The White House? I mean, if he's coming up the Potomac flying north, WH is right in front of him (on the same line as the Washington Monument) and Congress right next to it!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=....860296,-76.987896&spn=0.092098,0.215607&om=1

How hard can it be

 

[gumboot]

What I don't understand is why the pilot just didn't continue on to Congress or The White House? I mean, if he's coming up the Potomac flying north, WH is right in front of him (on the same line as the Washington Monument) and Congress right next to it!

I believe he was flying south, down the Potomac.

-Andrew

 

[Big Les]

Folks, looking for the best place to post this, but the most recent talk re cell phones at altitude seems to be back in the first "LC" thread. So hopefully you won't mind me putting it here:

http://www.avionicsmagazine.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0606&file=qa.htm

(Below is part of this interview on a study re interference with aircraft systems)

Avionics: Were cell phones used in violation of the rules?

Strauss: I was able to specifically identify eight signals that were cellular calls in flight. Some were at very high altitude, which is technically not possible, according to most cell phone manufacturers. They say calls can't be made that high. Well, we found differently.

Now, did those calls hold for minutes? Probably not. But were they completed? Yes. Calls actually were initiated at, for example, 7,000 feet, 12,000 feet, 18,000 feet and two at 35,000 feet.

Avionics: Do service providers fear that cell phone use at such altitudes would damage their ground transmitters?

Strauss: That was the original concern. That's why the FCC originally came with the ban on cell phones in the air. The FAA has always deferred to that ban.

In some cases the FCC took care of the FAA's work. Now the FCC is saying, "We no longer see this as an issue because of the sophistication of the cellular network." FCC feels it can probably lift the ban, even if there are problems of interference. They're saying to FAA, "If you want a ban, that's your territory."

 

[JohnM307]

You may speculate all you like, reverse-engineer all you like, doubt all you like, but until you present proof of your allegations you simply have nothing. Or next to it.

This is a case of not responding to what I actually wrote. You disregarded what followed that statement. I presented the proof. The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

Considering what alternative-9/11-conspiracy theorists propose would be one of the most complex undertakings of its kind -- not only to plan, but to implement, and continue to cover-up -- evidence and proof should be dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples. That it isn't might tell you something.

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.

Welcome to the forum.

Sarcasm noted. As is noted that the first response I encounter (outside the introductory thread) is precisely what I complained about. I presented the evidence. You disregarded it.

Or maybe you didn't recognize that my post was a reply to a long post talking about the circular dive of the plane, pulling out and skimming the ground without touching it. Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction. Maybe you were unaware that less than 200 persons were killed in the Pentagon attack, instead of thousands.

Please read what I write, and respond rationally to what I actually say.

 

[JamesB]

Folks, looking for the best place to post this, but the most recent talk re cell phones at altitude seems to be back in the first "LC" thread. So hopefully you won't mind me putting it here:

http://www.avionicsmagazine.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0606&file=qa.htm

(Below is part of this interview on a study re interference with aircraft systems)

With the exception of the 911 call from the bathroom, when United 93 was only at 7000 feet or so, all the calls were made from airfones anyway.

 

[Hellbound]

ive actually heard the opposite described

as he leveled off with the nose pointed at the pentagon (using the center courtyard as a "bullseye") he pushed the engines to full throttle, this increase in speed caused an increase in lift and he realized he would overshoot the target, so he pushed the nose down, overcompensating and hitting the outside wall at ground level

i guess either way is equally likely....was hanjour one of the "still alive" hijackers? maybe we can ask him

I have to agree with you here. The plane impacted almost at ground level, hitting the ground and the wall at almost the same time. The majority of the left wing was found buried under two feet of earth.

What I don't understand is why the pilot just didn't continue on to Congress or The White House? I mean, if he's coming up the Potomac flying north, WH is right in front of him (on the same line as the Washington Monument) and Congress right next to it!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=....860296,-76.987896&spn=0.092098,0.215607&om=1

How hard can it be

Chran:

There was another plane on the way (Flight 93). It's likely that 93 was supposed to target the White House. So, he didn't think he needed to go on to other buildings. The idea was to hit our financial, military, and political heads (symbolically), rather than just the amount of damage done. I do think that missing the Pentagon would've been considered a partial failure by al-Queda. Of course, I also think that hitting the ground a hundred yards before the Pentagon would only have reduced the damage done, not prevented the Pentagon from being damaged. Essentially, at the point hat he was that close, it really didn't matter. An aircraft that large, at that speed, is more of an area effect weapon.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... The logic goes like this: The attackers went out of their way to do the least possible damage to the Pentagon, at a virtual certain risk of complete failure to the mission. They would not have attacked the Pentagon that way, if the attackers were terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon. Therefore, they were not terrorists intent on attacking the Pentagon.

I believe you are denying the antecedent here. You are saying that:
P1: If they were terrorists then they would not have attacked the Pentagon that way.
P2: The Pentagon was not attacked that way.
C: Therefore they were not terrorists.

The problem with this is that you do not provide sufficient evidence as to why P1 is true. Additionally, you disregard other possible reasons for the Pentagon being the final target. Did they fail at their primary target and the Pentagon was a target of opportunity? Was the Pentagon chosen as a target, not for the physical damage that could be inflicted upon it, but rather the psychological impact of attack the building that represents the US military?

Balderdash. What makes it any harder for a secretive cabal in the US to do something in the US than a secretive cabal in Afghanistan? What can they possibly do in Afghanistan that they can't do in the US -- and leave out "doing things in Afghanistan." What makes it "one of the most complex undertakings of its kind" for the US goverment, but not for a secretive cabal in Afghanistan?

It wasn't a secret Afghanistan cabal. Intelligence services knew that al-Qaeda was a threat and that something was planned, but they didn't know what specifically was planned. Additionally, a group of individuals planning nefarious activites and doing this planning outside of the US, in circles that the intelligence community has trouble infilitrating has as much, if not more, fog of war around them then any black-ops organization within the US.

As for evidence and proof "dropping from the trees like over-ripe apples," all it takes is for the evidence and proof to be persistantly disregarded and its presenters demonized as "conspiracy theorists." The persistant tendency of the press to minimize coverage of things that damage the Bush Administration is another factor.

When the "evidence and proof" have been continually debunked, it does not mean it is being disregarded; it means it has been debunked.

...Maybe you were unaware that the Pentagon was hit where it was under construction.

The construction was completed.