September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

a reply to: hellobruce
Well then there is the faulty claim that the structural steel was encased in concrete. Just saying.....

a reply to: funbox

Pretty much. Not 9/11, but a U-2 at 70,000 feet can have as low a 15 knot window for flight. At the low end of that window, it stalls and falls out of the sky. At the upper end of the window, it over speeds and breaks up.

Tolerances are tight with aircraft. The USAir that landed in the Hudson, if he had pitched up about another 5 degrees, they would have hit the tail first and crashed.

a reply to: Zaphod58

so , how fast would the amateur plain enthusiast's been flying the plane at the ground, in order for it to leave such an imprint, with such deeply buried/ vaporised debris? surely it would take great skill to keep the plain at an angle and not shaking the plane to pieces before it hit the ground ?

all seems a little shaky , like comparing the two photos



funbox

a reply to: funbox

It was only a couple of seconds from the time they rolled on their back to the time they hit the ground. They were already down fairly low. Once you roll it over, it doesn't take much control. You'd have to fight against it because it's going to want to go for the ground.

a reply to: funbox

surely it would take great skill to keep the plain at an angle and not shaking the plane to pieces before it hit the ground ?

Shake to pieces?
Have you ever heard of turbulence?
If planes were that fragile they wouldn't fly them in the rain.

You might want to read up on Tex Johnston.
He rolled a B707 during a demo flight without permission.

Planes are tougher than you think.

a reply to: samkent

I was referring to Zaphod's upper window

At the upper end of the window, it over speeds and breaks up

a velocity in which the plane breaks up due to speed.

you have a problem with my phraseology? tough

funbox

a reply to: samkent

Yes and no. In the ways they're stresses for they are. But in other ways, not so much. The American Airbus that went down in New York just after 9/11 is a good example.

Excessive rudder movement stressed the vertical fin laterally more than it was designed for, and it separated, putting the aircraft into a flat spin. Once it was spinning, the engine struts failed. They're stressed for up and down movement, not lateral. Put lateral momentum on them, and they fail pretty quickly.

a reply to: funbox

It's known as Vmo, although it's not a hard limit. Flight 93 was low enough they never approached it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

so then the plane was going at free-fall speed ? you say 'a flat spin' , im not sure what you mean by that ...on its belly?

surely if it was going free-fall it would have left more surface wreckage , I had envisaged the terrorists pointing nose down from height , and upping the throttle.. to get buried engines , etc

funbox

a reply to: funbox

This was a different crash about a week after 9/11. It was an American Airlines flight in New York that came down in a neighborhood near Jamaica Bay killing everyone on board.

A flat spin is where the aircraft is level, but rotating around, while staying level.

What you're picturing is close to what happened to Flight 93, except they rolled over onto their back first.

a reply to: Zaphod58

from what you are saying im seeing this ..



surely I am mistaken?

funbox

a reply to: soulwaxer

Duh, let's see.. Ruptured gas lines, vehicle gas tanks, even large sections of building falling could all be the cause. But no, it's whatever BS you probably think it is.
I didn't address it because it's meaningless without further information and only a complete retard could possibly not expect explosions that day from 'normal' things.

a reply to: funbox

More nose down. They went on their back, and pointed the nose to about a 95 degree angle or so. Almost completely vertical to the ground.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: oxidadoblanco
You CANNOT melt all the "structural steel" inside of a concrete column from jet fuel...

What are you babbling about, who mentioned steel melting at the WTC?

and "melt" all the structural steel in the building.....

Again, why are you claiming steel melted?

Something is wrong with this entire scenario.

Yes, what is wrong is you claiming steel melted at the WTC!

Who's babbling?..

Explain this. Are these firemen lying?

And don't forget to take this into account.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

There were easily a dozen different metals involved in the make up of the Twin Towers, and most of them, had a melting point that was far less than steel. So, I would EXPECT to find some of those metals in a molten state when exposed to the heat of the fires under the debris pile.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: soulwaxer

There were easily a dozen different metals involved in the make up of the Twin Towers, and most of them, had a melting point that was far less than steel. So, I would EXPECT to find some of those metals in a molten state when exposed to the heat of the fires under the debris pile.

You have the same canned answers every time.

What metal, of any type, is going to remain in molten state for days after 9/11, without some heat source? Yes, testimony says there molten metals many days after 9/11.

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
You have the same canned answers every time.

If you keep asking the same dumb questions you're going to get the same answers, unless new information becomes available.
The only difference otherwise may be that you don't get as much detail on the 500th time because people got bored explaining the first 499 times over the last 14 years. It's like 9/11 Truther's are all stars in '50 first dates', as Lucy.

originally posted by: AgentSmith

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
You have the same canned answers every time.

If you keep asking the same dumb questions you're going to get the same answers, unless new information becomes available.
The only difference otherwise may be that you don't get as much detail on the 500th time because people got bored explaining the first 499 times over the last 14 years. It's like 9/11 Truther's are all stars in '50 first dates', as Lucy.

If it gets tiring, then why are the 12 of you, agent (perhaps a fitting name), on here every day spouting the same crapola? If this is a waste of your time, why do you do it? What motivates you?

Why would you need to protect the "OS" which the MSM has mind-numbingly taken as fact for 13.5 years?

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
If it gets tiring, the why are the 12 of you, agent (perhaps a fitting name), on here every day spouting the same crapola? If this is a waste of your time, why do you do it? What motivates you?

Why would you need to protect the "OS" which the MSM has mond-numbingly taken as fact for 13.5 years?

I hadn't bothered posting in the 9/11 forums with any seriousness for years, if you paid any attention.
I only bothered looking in here to see if after fourteen years any of you super clever astute types had managed to find out anything interesting or condemning. Imagine my lack of surprise when I opened the door to hear the BZZZZZZZZ and there was nothing there.

My motivation is accuracy, removing the crud so whatever the truth is can be seen. Talking crap about 'pull it' or refusing to understand physics and engineering beyond a lego level just muddies the waters. There are too many other people like you who just parrot crap and believe garbage because someone packages up nicely for you and it's different to the mainstream.
I understand you probably mean well and it's not your fault you don't have the scientific understanding required, but does that mean those that do should just shut up so you can keep on believin' without being educated?

I'm not sure what your obsession is with supporting governments or official stories, why are people like you so black and white? Just because I or others point out your errors on some aspects is irrelevant to my or someone else's opinion of the bigger picture. Is it that complicated to understand? Evidently to some....
Let me repeat it again so maybe it sinks in a little, don't worry we'll get there in the end I'm sure - I have faith in you - everything is not black and white. Just because someone doesn't agree with some or even a lot of what you say doesn't actually mean you're not of a similar opinion about the bigger picture.
An understanding of physics, human behaviour, specialist fields, etc does not mean someone is working for or supportive of a Government - it just means maybe they have more knowledge than you to form their own opinion instead of relying on someone else's.

As for my name and for the 100th time - back when I joined, the Matrix was popular (clue is in my join date) and it was a more clique group there was already someone called 'TheNeo' so I chose Smith. It's actually that simple *rolls eyes*
But as usual, the super duper intelligent, superior to the sheeple truthers think there are little 'clues' left for them to solve that the poor dumb people they're going to save from the evil government are too stupid to get..

a reply to: AgentSmith

You should probably consider changing your moniker. With your posting history, it leads to obvious conclussions, from those of us who are fortunate enough to see through the maze of government and media propaganda.

Ever hear of Edward Snowden?