Controversial 911 Images

Ok, here we go. Just posting images.

/duck


Do you believe what you're told or what you see:
i226.photobucket.com...

i226.photobucket.com...


Sections on top reach ground in same amount of time:
i226.photobucket.com...


If building 7 came down from damage, why didn't this building:
i226.photobucket.com...


150 ton airplane compared to 500,000 ton building is the same as
150 pound person next to 500,000 pound mining truck:
i226.photobucket.com...


The amount of fuel compared to the size of the building. Remember,
this building is made primarily of steel, glass, and concrete:
i226.photobucket.com...

Cool! i like what you have posted here....so what would happen if that person went flying into the tractor at 500mph? I am guessing the tractor would collapse....

Do you believe what you're told or what you see:
i226.photobucket.com...

i226.photobucket.com...

yes, the second picture is of a building falling. You see, that structure was once standing tall, much like the one still standing in the picture. At the moment of that picture, it was in the process of FALLING from its previous standing position. Now, were it once a small structure emitting that huge plume of debris, you'd have something that resembled an explosion. But that's not the case

Sections on top reach ground in same amount of time:
i226.photobucket.com...

The "free-fall" theory is non-sense. That picture reminds me of something you'd see on an IQ test. (hint: the answer to the question would be false)

If building 7 came down from damage, why didn't this building:
i226.photobucket.com...

Am I missing something here? Isn't an entire section of that hotel collapsed?

150 ton airplane compared to 500,000 ton building is the same as
150 pound person next to 500,000 pound mining truck:
i226.photobucket.com...

Interesting. I'd say that dude is probably heavier than 150 pounds though! Maybe one of the guys with better physics knowledge can explain it in more precise terms, but it doesn't seem entirely fair to compare a truck to a building or a man to an airplane, but hey, that's just me.

The amount of fuel compared to the size of the building. Remember,
this building is made primarily of steel, glass, and concrete:
i226.photobucket.com...

What does the cubic volume of the building have to do with the explosive or burning potential of jet fuel?

Yup. Total 'global' collapse would insue. lol

I like how the guy countered your arguments with a bunch of sarcasm. Sarcasm gives credibility to a story where there is none.

One correct to the arguments.

The 150 to 500,000 argument has a huge flaw in it.

The energy carried by a MOVING object is it's mass times the square of it's speed, thus you can damage heavy things with light things. This is why a bullet of just a few grams can blast open a body or rip through steel plates. Also, density plays a roll. A 5 ton blimp is easier to break than a 5 ton dump truck. The WTC were low density and hit by a fast objects. That part actually makes sense.

I'm not saying there isn't more at work in their collapse, but rather that the argument doesn't hold much weight, pun intended.

good find.
only debunkers would argue any further.
(the 150 to 500,000 argument correction included)

I always said that the incredible amount of jet fuel that brought down the building its actually almost nothing compared to the size of the building itself...

reply to post by Quest

You also have to remember that the planes were also of low density. No they were not "lighter than air" machines, but they were as light as they could be given the materials and the job they had to do.

Bottom line, the planes, apart from the engines and landing gear, were not dense.

The issue with the plane collisions is how to transfer the mass of the planes efficiently to the surface of the building. How to slam a plane into the building without exceeding the structural tolerances of the wings, tail and fuselage.

I've never seen any detailed explanation of that. One poster on another thread cited a study (from MIT I believe) that one couldn't download without paying $30 or so. (I very much doubt if the poster had even read the study.)

From the abstract of the study, It appeared that they had taken the mass of the plane, plus the strength of its structural materials, and calculated as if it were a large plank that hit the buildings end on. And yes, IT COULD penetrate the building. What a surprise! The MIT-heads come through for the perps, another surprise.

I'm just a layperson, but I don't think a serious aeronautical engineer would be impressed by a study like that. I think the real study would be a lot more complicated. Until I see it, I have to believe there was something fishy about those collisions. Don't know what. But something.

Originally posted by dionysius9

I don’t even want to get into another 911 debate, but this is the only picture that fits this entire post, you are comparing apples to oranges with your comparison photos.

Just a couple of issues in this:

1) Tower seven fell because it was a cheaper and weaker designed truss structure building, it was not constructed in the same manner as many other buildings are.

2) A 767 holds more the 900 cubic feet of fuel, also that fuel was in a contained area which caused an explosion. To say it was evenly distributed is the same as trying to say that the same amount of gunpowder is going to react the same way if its spread out on a surface as it will if its contained in something, which is not the case.

3) 150 lbs person compared to the 500K truck, is a bad comparison. If you fired the person at the truck at 500 mph, you bet that the person would puncture the grill on the truck. A big factor in this is speed and density. The building is not that dense as its mostly airspace, the aircraft is more dense due to its frame. So a lighter aircraft is not going to have much difficulty knocking out structure when it is literally rocketing at only a small section of the entire building, which is not that dense.

The rest of it is not even worth the time to go into.

I don’t even want to get into another 911 debate

Of course you don't, that's why you posted.

1) Tower seven fell because it was a cheaper and weaker designed truss structure building, it was not constructed in the same manner as many other buildings are.

Isn't that odd. I'd heard it was a very strong building with MASSIVE beams, built like that because it was over an electrical substation.

2) A 767 holds more the 900 cubic feet of fuel, also that fuel was in a contained area which caused an explosion.

Surely you mean 3 or 4 contained areas as per Jane's All the World's Aircraft writeup:

www.janes.com...

Fuel in one integral tank in each wing, and in centre tank, with total capacity of 63,216 litres (16,700 US gallons; 13,905 Imp gallons) in 200/300; 767-200ER and -300ER have additional 28,163 litres (7,440 US gallons; 6,195 Imp gallons) in second centre-section tank, raising total capacity to 91,379 litres (24,140 US gallons; 20,100 Imp gallons). Refuelling point in port outer wing.

3) 150 lbs person compared to the 500K truck, is a bad comparison. If you fired the person at the truck at 500 mph, you bet that the person would puncture the grill on the truck.

What would happen if the truck were fired at the person at 500 mph? You can bet the grill of the truck would penetrate the hardest bones in his body. The physics of the two scenarios are the same. I think what we need here are detailed calculations.

A big factor in this is speed and density. The building is not that dense as its mostly airspace, the aircraft is more dense due to its frame.

Sorry, calculations needed. You must be from MIT if you are comparing the total density of the building and the total density of the plane and expecting to be taken seriously.

So a lighter aircraft is not going to have much difficulty knocking out structure when it is literally rocketing at only a small section of the entire building, which is not that dense.

That might be the case, but I'd like to see the points proven in a detailed study, because I think the plane should have been wrinkled a little as it went into the building.

The rest of it is not even worth the time to go into.

Well, that's a relief anyway.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Of course you don't, that's why you posted.

I have been arguing 911 since a very long time before you ever came to this site. I am quite sick of the topic, and the hardliner truthers who will not believe anything truthful because it conflicts with their fantasies.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Isn't that odd. I'd heard it was a very strong building with MASSIVE beams, built like that because it was over an electrical substation.

No, it was a truss structure that did not have support columns sunk deep into the ground as most buildings do. The fact that there was something underneath the structure is probably the reason they could not sink in deep support columns.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation, which had been on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building on the site of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²). The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.
The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation. Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Surely you mean 3 or 4 contained areas as per Jane's All the World's Aircraft writeup:
Fuel in one integral tank in each wing, and in centre tank, with total capacity of 63,216 litres (16,700 US gallons; 13,905 Imp gallons) in 200/300; 767-200ER and -300ER have additional 28,163 litres (7,440 US gallons; 6,195 Imp gallons) in second centre-section tank, raising total capacity to 91,379 litres (24,140 US gallons; 20,100 Imp gallons). Refuelling point in port outer wing.

I was a professional fueler and ramp supervisor, who worked on commercial airlines, don’t even begin to lecture me on aircraft fueling…

I was making a general statement, and your drawings figures are off. You must calculate fuel by pressure/temperature density to figure out square footage. That is why when we fuel an aircraft there are sometimes fuel spills, it is due to density variation based on both temperature and barometric pressure. As a matter of fact, a good piece of advise is to fuel your car early in the morning when its coldest because even though gas pumps are supposed to maintain a constant fuel temp, they often don’t, and you get more gas per gallon at that time as its denser.

Some other little know-it-all turther once wrote a paper stating that the aircraft had to be nearly empty, because it was an early morning flight and it did not need to have full tanks. The truth of the matter is that early morning flights are some of the heaviest flights of the day. The reason being that airports want to get all the mail and freight out early, so they have empty flights to put the stuff that comes in throughout that day on. Also early morning flights are normally ballast fueled while sitting the night before. This is to ensure that they don’t “jump the caulks” in a good wind during the night.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
What would happen if the truck were fired at the person at 500 mph? You can bet the grill of the truck would penetrate the hardest bones in his body. The physics of the two scenarios are the same. I think what we need here are detailed calculations.

But the entire mass of the building did not come into contact with the aircraft, only a small section of the building did. Also the building is attached to the ground so it cannot absorb force through recoil as readily as many other things can. If you cannot figure out that much basic physics, then I don’t think I can do much to help you.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Sorry, calculations needed. You must be from MIT if you are comparing the total density of the building and the total density of the plane and expecting to be taken seriously.

You are the one comparing the total mass of the building to the total mass of the aircraft, not me.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
That might be the case, but I'd like to see the points proven in a detailed study, because I think the plane should have been wrinkled a little as it went into the building.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to bother with such an exercise. Besides the fact that no matter how much proof is handed to truthers they will never believe a word of it, they have their theories and no amount logic will sway those theories.

Originally posted by defcon5

I have neither the time nor the inclination to bother with such an exercise. Besides the fact that no matter how much proof is handed to truthers they will never believe a word of it, they have their theories and no amount logic will sway those theories.

And the same could be said for you plane huggers. The only difference, in my opinion, is that the truthers are correct and you are not.

Of course I built and flew them. I only serviced them on occasion.

But thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
And the same could be said for you plane huggers. The only difference, in my opinion, is that the truthers are correct and you are not.

Of course I built and flew them. I only serviced them on occasion.

First off, when did you build them, didn't your old man build them?
Secondly, if you recall correctly you are the only pilot I know who could not answer my basic question on hand-signals, and aircraft you claim to be certified to captain. You do know that the only reason I let you off the hook that time is because I was asked to let you off the hook.

But thanks for the post.

Originally posted by defcon5

First off, when did you build them, didn't your old man build them?

No, he designed them. I actually built them. I was a riviter and mechanic. I know how airplanes are put together and why there couldn't possibly have been an airplane crash without tons of debris as you allege in the WTC and the B-52.

Secondly, if you recall correctly you are the only pilot I know who could not answer my basic question on hand-signals, and aircraft you claim to be certified to captain. You do know that the only reason I let you off the hook that time is because I was asked to let you off the hook.

Let me respectfully suggest that your question was so juvenile that I could do nothing more than make fun of it. But nice try.

Also, if you could tell me who asked you to 'let me off' I would appreciate it very much. I would like to know if it was a moderator or just a member. I don't need that kind of help and I don't appreciate it so I would like to get it straightened out today.

But thanks for the post and your continued input as uninformed as it is.

Originally posted by johnlear
without tons of debris as you allege in the WTC and the B-52.

B-52?
Who is talking about B-52’s?
Where did I mention this?
Or are you now just getting 767’s and B-52’s mixed up?

Originally posted by johnlear
Let me respectfully suggest that your question was so juvenile that I could do nothing more than make fun of it. But nice try.

Sure, which is why you admitted in that thread that you did not know the answers to the questions. Like not knowing that an aircraft, that you claim to be a certified pilot on, does not have an APU, and needs to be air started at the gate before each flight.

Originally posted by johnlear
Also, if you could tell me who asked you to 'let me off' I would appreciate it very much.

Talk to your boss about it. I let it lay, for a long time, but my original issue was with you “claiming to be the aircraft expert” based on your fathers name, then making outrageously untrue remarks on aviation topics. Yet here you are doing it again. Perhaps you should tell me exactly what is incorrect in my above posts?


What, you don’t believe that temperature and barometric pressure effect fuel density?
Yet you claim to be a pilot???

[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]

From Boeing's own website the 747 carries 8488 cubic feet of jet fuel:

Boeing 747 Facts

"The 747-400ER can carry more than 63,500 gallons of fuel (240,370 L)"

Google says "63,500 US gallons = 8488.71531 cubic feet"

So that comparison pic of the wtc to the 10x10x9 cubicle is innacurate by a factor of ten.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Choronzon]

Originally posted by Choronzon
From Boeing's own website the 747 carries 31285 cubic feet of jet fuel:

Well that is cool and all, but you still have a problem there.
It was a 767, not a 747. Also as I stated fuel density varies.
Other then that though, good find.


[edit on 12/8/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5

Talk to your boss about it.

Thanks for the post Defcon5. I would respectfully request that you clarify this comment.

Thank you.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post Defcon5. I would respectfully request that you clarify this comment.

And I respectfully ask that we just let it lay. Maybe, rather then you coming in here, bullying folks based on your family name, by making grandiose comments to disregard what I posted as errant, you should tell me what the error was in my post. You should realize that you are not the only person on this website who has had professional aviation experience by now. Its very funny how often those folks disagree with what it is you tend to champion.