The Hologram Theory is dead

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I assumed you made a mistake and meant to write 767 because of the current discussion

I assumed you knew what planes were supposed to have been used that day.

Don't blame me for your random subject changes and confusing posts. Obviously I'm not the only one saying this. I just asked you to clarify what you were saying. Instead you decided somehow it was my fault and got cranky with me.
Do yourself a favor, go back and re-read the posts and you'll see what I mean. Everyone was talking about the WTC then all of a sudden you change the post without putting enough info in for people to follow your new thoughts.

Originally posted by jfj123
Don't blame me for your random subject changes and confusing posts. Obviously I'm not the only one saying this. I just asked you to clarify what you were saying.

Well don't blame me you cannot understand someone adding some different information. Seems like your just upset becasue the information does not go along with what you believe.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Don't blame me for your random subject changes and confusing posts. Obviously I'm not the only one saying this. I just asked you to clarify what you were saying.

Well don't blame me you cannot understand someone adding some different information. Seems like your just upset becasue the information does not go along with what you believe.

I'm not upset. Like I said, you posted something confusing and I was trying to clarify what you said but instead of just clarifying your position, you chose to get snotty. Your choice to handle it the way you did as you posted the responses.

What information doesn't go along with what I believe? Please be specific as to what event you are referring to.

Originally posted by jfj123
What information doesn't go along with what I believe?

Well all the information i have posted goes against the official story.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
What information doesn't go along with what I believe?

Well all the information i have posted goes against the official story.

Actually no it doesn't but in any case, we were talking about someone who posted a video showing equations regarding one of the planes flying toward the WTC's at mach 2.7.
My response is that the 767's can't fly at mach 2.7
and my thinking is that since nobody reported the sound barrier breaking (sonic booms), I didn't think the equations were correct.

I didn't mention anything about the "official" theory.

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually no it doesn't but in any case, we were talking about someone who posted a video showing equations regarding one of the planes flying toward the WTC's at mach 2.7.

But by your post you believe the official story. Just too bad you cannot support it with facts.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually no it doesn't but in any case, we were talking about someone who posted a video showing equations regarding one of the planes flying toward the WTC's at mach 2.7.

But by your post you believe the official story. Just too bad you cannot support it with facts.

Please refer to the NIST report and the Purdue University video as evidence. If you believe the physics regarding the Purdue University video are incorrect, please post the actual math. Failure to post your math disproving the video, means you do not disagree with the Purdue University video.

ULTIMA, regarding the turbulence issue:

'Wake Turbulence' is primarily a result of the wingtip vortices generated in flight. (Try to visualize a horizontal vortex coming off of the trailing edge of each wingtip). Much research has determined that the intensity of wake turbulence is greatest when the airplane is in the landing configuration, i.e., flaps and slats deployed to allow for slower speeds for the landing. The vortices will generally drift down about 300 feet, and will of course drift horizontally in any prevailing wind. They will dissipate usually after a few minutes.

As to AA77, I have an acquaintance who saw the airplane pass by his seventh floor apartment in Arlington on its way to the Pentagon. His building is on Columbia Pike. At that point the airplane was lower than normal, but still above the high-rise buildings along the highway. Perhaps there are other eyewitnesses?

Originally posted by jfj123
Please refer to the NIST report and the Purdue University video as evidence. If you believe the physics regarding the Purdue University video are incorrect, please post the actual math. Failure to post your math disproving the video, means you do not disagree with the Purdue University video.

Oh so why are we getting so huffy about math. Desperate maybe?

Correct me if i am wrong but didn't NIST state the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing?

Why do we need math when actually it only take common sense to look at the animation and see the plane being shredded by the steel.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, regarding the turbulence issue:

'Wake Turbulence' is primarily a result of the wingtip vortices generated in flight. (Try to visualize a horizontal vortex coming off of the trailing edge of each wingtip).

Yes i do know about wake turbulence i do have a background in aviation.

But there are other factors involved here also. The speed and height off the ground.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


ULTIMA, if I may gently give you something to think about (off topic, but pertinent)...'common sense' when looking at something has led many to doubt the veracity of Apollo Lunar EVA photos. 'Common sense' 1000 years ago told us the Earth was flat, and the Universe revolved around it...I'm not beating on you, just saying that sometimes unassailable science is necessary to provide definitive answers to our questions.

Food for thought, not being offensive I hope.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA, if I may gently give you something to think about (off topic, but pertinent)...'common sense' .

Maybe i should have stated common sense along with education and experience.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Oh, ULTIMA, we're typing at the same time!

Yes, as I said about wake turb, which you already know, it is at its most severe when the airplane is 'heavy and slow'. In the cruise configuration, yes, there is a wake as well. At high (cruise) altitudes in certain environmental conditions those vortices can persist for some time...any airline pilot can attest to that. Following in trail, at cruise, across the Atlantic where we have 1000feet separation, we sometimes have to offset just a bit. (yes, they can drop 1000ft, normally they peter out at about 300ft). Generally, the vortices are compact when the airplane is fast and clean, and stronger and wider when the airplane is slow and dirty.

Cheers!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Yes, as I said about wake turb, which you already know, it is at its most severe when the airplane is 'heavy and slow'. In the cruise configuration, yes, there is a wake as well.

Yes, but you also have things like Ground effect, compressablity, and jet blast. You will have all kinds of things going on at that speed and height off the ground.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Please refer to the NIST report and the Purdue University video as evidence. If you believe the physics regarding the Purdue University video are incorrect, please post the actual math. Failure to post your math disproving the video, means you do not disagree with the Purdue University video.

Oh so why are we getting so huffy about math. Desperate maybe?

I'm not huffy at all. You complain all the time about nobody posting evidence . So now I'm asking you to do the same and back up what you are saying. I agree with the Purdue University video as it seems reasonable to me. If you disagree with it, show me.

Correct me if i am wrong but didn't NIST state the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing?

You're wrong. This is me correcting you

Why do we need math when actually it only take common sense to look at the animation and see the plane being shredded by the steel.

Because common sense is relative. Many people who think they have it.....don't. Math is much more reliable then somebodies impression of common sense.

And once again, the animation shows severe damage to quite a few core columns and the NIST report seems to back up what the Purdue University video shows so if you agree with the Purdue University video, and the NIST report supports it, you agree with the NIST report (A=B=C).

Are you familiar with building? Do you know how the weight must be shifted to the remaining core columns to keep the building up? Do you understand the actual weight transfers involved?

Originally posted by jfj123

Correct me if i am wrong but didn't NIST state the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing?

You're wrong. This is me correcting you

Please show me the statement from NIST that says the planes caused the collapse.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me the statement from NIST that says the planes caused the collapse.

Has NIST responded to those who believe that the WTC towers collapsed in ways other than the mechanisms determined by the NIST investigation?
When the final report on the WTC towers was released in October 2005, many in the building design, construction, fire, rescue, safety, and legislative communities praised the three-year effort as the authoritative accounting of the events that took place and began working with NIST to use the report’s 30 recommendations to improve building codes, standards, and practices. However, there have been claims from so-called “alternative theory” groups that factors other than those described in the NIST report brought the towers down.

To respond to a number of the questions raised, NIST has posted a fact sheet on the investigation Web site (wtc.nist.gov...). The fact sheet explains how NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to 9/11, or that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, the fact sheet describes how photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

NIST respects the right of others to hold opinions that do not agree with the findings in its report on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2. However, the WTC Investigation Team stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report.

Source: www.nist.gov...

This statement from the NIST makes it clear: The NIST has found that the planes were 100% responsible for the collapse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me the statement from NIST that says the planes caused the collapse.
[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Just to be sure that their stance on the collapse is crystal clear:

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Once again, they state that planes were solely responsible for the collapse.

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

Once again, they state that planes were solely responsible for the collapse.

If the planes were solely responsible how come you posted (2) causes, planes and fires?

I asked for evidence that the planes casued the collapse. Not planes and fires.

Can you post evdence that the planes caused the collapes, YES or NO ?

Why does the NIST 2004 report of the NIST model state that the builidngs witshtood the planes impacts and the fires.

wtc.nist.gov...

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

NIST also stated that the fires did not get hot enough in their report.

wtc.nist.gov...

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

[edit on 27-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by InnocentBystander
(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

Once again, they state that planes were solely responsible for the collapse.

If the planes were solely responsible how come you posted (2) causes, planes and fires?

I asked for evidence that the planes casued the collapse. Not planes and fires.

Can you post evdence that the planes caused the collapes, YES or NO ?

Are you serious? If you don't get this already then I don't know if I can help, but I'll try even though it's against my better judgement.

The plane impact and the fire that resulted are just that, cause and effect. They are not seperate occurances. When the planes hit the towers, they caused fires. Are you with me? The planes caused the fires. No plane impact, no fires. Do you agree that the planes caused the fires? If so, you can continue.

You saying the fires and the planes are two seperate reasons is like saying someone who died of a gunshot wound actually died of two causes: a bullet and a gun. It's word olympics, meant to confuse a simple issue. The planes slammed into the WTC, causing big holes and fires. Buildings don't like big holes and fires, so they fell down.