Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

the twoof movement

I lol'd so hard I bit my lip on accident.

Is this what some of you are resorting to now? Repugnant name-calling? I've seen more than one 'debunker' use this abominable excuse of an insult.

Let's try not putting people down, and be constructive at the same time. If you ask me, the 9/11 debates are completely pointless because neither side can convince the other after years of trying. But if we must continue debate, which is completely fine, I'd like to see some reasonable arguments and no more character assasinations and ridicule.

I don't believe I've given my 2 cents on this actual thread.... probably because I distance myself from the notion that the towers' steel weakened from heat. I'm not certain that the fires could've completely demolished two 110 story buildings. Could it possibly weaken a portion and cause it to fail? Sure. But there was plenty of building left to be demolished afterward....

Originally posted by Psycontagious

Let's try not putting people down, and be constructive at the same time. If you ask me, the 9/11 debates are completely pointless because neither side can convince the other after years of trying.

actually that's not true. many people have been woken up to the fact that "they" are lying about at least SOMETHING on 9/11.
movies like loose change (don't want to debate the quality of that flick, or how many errors it has. overall it makes many valid points), zeitgeiist, 9/11 eyewitness, the pentacon and other movies by CIT have changed the minds of thousands of people.
the list of architects and engineers has grown considerably, and continues to grow.
i have personally woken up several people. i'll bet others here can say the same.

the only ones who aren't changing their stance are the hard core debunkers from mind control central, amd they already know it was an inside job, because they are in the NWO media squad.

stock answer to this accusation: "where do i pick up my cheque, then?" i've ssen just about every single debunker use that line when confronted with the fact that they spend an inordinate amount of time "debunking".

"debunking" is another word for weaving non sequitor webs of deceit and disconnecting the dots while attempting to stifle real communication by using innuendo and insults.

reply to post by billybob

AND I have seen plenty come around,but not one has gone from questioning to supporting the OS.Not one.

Originally posted by billybob


the only ones who aren't changing their stance are the hard core debunkers from mind control central, amd they already know it was an inside job, because they are in the NWO media squad.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. It's only possible to believe that if you spend an inordinate amount of time around 9/11 Truth and thus subject your opinions to continual self-reinforcement.

The fact is that a vast majority of people either don't think that much about 9/11 or believe basically in the mainstream line. It is possible to produce polls where significant numbers (although I have never seen anything like a majority in western nations) say things like "there may be some inconsistencies within the official story of what happened on 9/11" but that's a massive leap away from even the most basic Truth Movement assertions. For example I would agree with the above, but I find much of the Truth movement risible.

There is likewise a large and significant number of people who have heard of the Truth movement and understand some of its basic tenets, but have taken the view that it is composed variously of cranks, profiteers and the mildly gullible. Mostly they choose simply not to engage with it. You don't see them disagreeing with you in large numbers because they simply avoid the whole topic, considering it to be a waste of time.

reply to post by billybob


I thought about this just before I clicked 'reply'.

I didn't want to come across that way. I was mostly reffering to the debates here on ATS of late. Though I'm sure there's been a few that have walked away from the OS after studying ATS's threads as well.

Thought I'd clarify.

Oh, and I've gone from one side to the next both ways; truther to debunker, debunker to truther.

Just my 2 bobs worth, But its said that the planes were averaging 6000 to 10000 litres of fuel... that IMHO is not a really large amount of fuel .. having some knowledge of locomotives and the like they hold about 5000 litres and the tank is external so to me anyways it looks pretty small compared to pictures of the plane impacts and fireballs

reply to post by foxhoundone


This is how misunderstanding begin:

...its said that the planes were averaging 6000 to 10000 litres...

No....GALLONS. About four litres per U.S. gallon (not exactly...I think it's more like 3.8 lt/gal)

But, I like round numbers. Close enough for a mental image.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


i could agree with some of what you said except for the part about the majority of people believing the official line. any poll i've ever seen showed the opposite. i think you just pulled that "fact" out of you "hat" based on not just polls, but my real life discussions with people. i don't think i know anyone anymore who believes the official lie.

and the other part i can't agree with is that people who are after the truth do it for any other reason than the search for truth, and more importantly justice and the restoration of the constitutional rights that made america great in the first place.

the part i do agree with is that different factions of the "truth movement" (i don't actually see anything moving, but i do see that the investigation by private citizens is ongoing and frequently uncovers new information and makes relevant connections) are at odds with each other and can dissuade newcomers to the "arena" from delving too deeply because of contradictory and/or outlandish claims.

to most who look more past the surface, though, there is a wealth of perfectly valid info which makes it obvious there is some degree of cover-up happening. some people "just can't believe" this or that, and that is fine for people who are happy in "the matrix", but at a certain points, a critical mass is reached, and then the matrix doesn't seem so safe and comfortable any more. i think that critical mass is coming.

so does the government. that's why they are getting ready to use the military against the people with infrastructure (fema camps), legislation and "emergency" training/drills.

the collapse was modeled by two chinese engineers using FEA simulation shortly after 9/11, and their fall time was around 90 seconds. "funny" that the NIST couldn't do the same with their twenty million.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks for that information WeedWhacker that makes a lot more sense to me now,
Now for a totally off topic question how much fuel on average does a plane use when taking off and during landing when reverse thrust is applied??
We are trying to limit aeroplanes landing at our local airport.. abit cheeky i know But your the expert cheers

reply to post by foxhoundone

...how much fuel on average does a plane use when taking off and during landing when reverse thrust is applied??

You cannot determine an 'average' to fit all possible airplanes.

Fuel usage depends on A) The engine type, size, thrust rating etc, and B) The amount of power being produced at the time.

Example: The RR RB-211 engine on some B757s. Idling, on the ground...fuel flow is between 700 and 900 pounds per hour. (Sorry, I us the U.S. measures)

At take off thrust settings, it can be as high as 10,000 or even 12,000 pph. Those power settings are only used briefly, however. Typically, here in the U.S. we reduce to climb power settings at 1,000 feet above the airport. (I don't time it, we're busy...but it's just a minute, almost two, after the start of take off roll).

Cruise power setting range at about 3,000 pph. That is in the 80% - 87% N1 range.

The fuel flow rate is actually related to the speed the engine components are turning, the N1 and N2 (the Rolls Royce also uses an N3 guage). We watch N1 the most, as it is most limiting.

T/O N1 is in the 95% to 103% range --- will vary depending on altitude, temperature, aircraft gross weight....whether there are icing conditions present, and engine anti-ice is ON...lots of things. Look into a concept known as "Balanced Field Length"...there may be google links, haven't checked. It is one way to describe how, and why, most take-offs use a slightly reduced (but safe) power setting, to reduce wear and tear on engines. (The system is "tricked" by setting an artificially higher temperature into the Thrust Computer, which gives a lower N1...sorry, it's techincal and too hard to describe here)

Back to the N1 -- you asked about landings, and reverse thrust. Generally, again the B757, we hardly ever use more than about 70% to 75% N1 in reverse.... most laypeople don't know this but reverse thrust is NOT considered in landing and stopping distance calculations. (Example: In an aborted take-off for an engine failure, only the aircraft braking system is considered for the stop).

Reverse is commonly used to reduce...you guessed it...wear and tear on the brakes. Reverse is MOST effective at the higher speeds immediately after landing, effectiveness diminishes with slower speeds. We call out "80 knots" as a cue to begin stowing the reversers. Goal is to have the reversers stowed by 60 knots, and engines at idle for the taxi clear of the runway.

Also, know that it is SOP on most modern jets to use the AutoBrakes for landing. They are selectable from 1, 2, 3 or 'MAX'. The numbered positions monitor deceleration rate, and only apply the brakes as needed. 'MAX' of course, is what it says.

SO...the actual time of higher thrust settings in the landing roll? Just a matter of seconds. FYI, on final approach, stabilized prior to touchdown, the N1 is about 72% to 78%....(depends on weight) power is brought to idle for the landing, then reverse is applied....for less than the minute needed to decelerate to taxi speeds.





[edit on 22 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by space cadet
6000 gallons of fuel ignited upon impact per plane. The other 4000 gallons ignited as the buildings collapsed causing the disinegration of everything in it's way. The hijackers made sure the planes were stocked full of gas, it was a priority of which planes were chosen.

Star and flag John, for bringing up the reality of 9/11.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by space cadet]

Talk about the PERFECT name for someone. Spacecadet. Wow, the remaining 4000 gallons of gas just happened to sit around for an f'ing hour through what the OS and 'official story' call an INTENSE enough fire to melt steel? Seriously? So that 4000 gallons of fuel decided to explode once the buildings started to collapse to bring down the rest of the building?

I had to stop typing. My sides are actually hurting from laughing so much.

Once again WeedWhacker thanks for expert knowledge on aeronautics.. i have read alot off your posts regarding aeroplanes and accept your credibility
The reason we want to limit planes in the city limit is because of pollution in an urbanised area and see if there's a link to eczema and asthma in children... once again cheers for info

t's been 8 years guys, the amount of energy spent on this , could have invented a cure for cancer by now.

give it up guys.

reply to post by dariousg


All snarkiness aside,

...just happened to sit around for an f'ing hour through what the OS and 'official story' call an INTENSE enough fire to melt steel?

I sorta agree...fuel didn't just "sit around" unburned. BUT, your phony indignation shows an attempt to use ridicule for somthing that wasn't really stated...or, was incorrectly implied, accidentally.

NOBODY says steel "melted"...except for the 'CT' types who use derisive terms for the "official story"...whatever that is.

There was PLENTY of combustible materials in the buildings to contribute to a great deal of heat from fire, once the initial ignition source set them off (the burning fuel).

If people cannot understand how fuel that is sprayed out from the impact of a fuel tank, and thus is atomized in the atmosphere, and ignited by....where? OH, yeah...the ENGINES, with internal temperature exceeding 1800 degrees C...if people can't understand WHY fuel ignites, then there is no helping them.

Maybe if I looked for evidence of OTHER plane crashes...MEH! Been done to death! Three suggestions: United Airlines DC-10, Iowa City

Airbus demonstration flight, A320, France

B-52 at airshow, Washington, USA

have fun googling....

there are others....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
I would not have to ask the same question 7+ times to receive a legitimate response.

The definition of insane is doing the same thng over and over, and expecting a new outcome.

I admit I may be insane for trying to have a reasonable discussion with a twoll, but that must make you insane too, for coming here and arguing with us on a daily basis to no effect.

I've seen enough of you to know who and what you are. You're too cowardly to answer a simple question when you are pinned with nowhere you'd like to go. You know there is something here you can't explain and you have no guts to admit it, so you repeatedly ignore and ignore and ignore and insult and insult and insult. You're a twoll. (Get it? I put a "w" in there instead of an "r" because I'm a cute little 2-year-old like that! )


reply to post by Valhall


Val, I didn't actually waste $30 on him; I just used his own stupid reasoning against him because I know he won't do what he keeps telling me to do, and he doesn't even understand what the article he keeps referencing says anyway. That is about the definition of trolling, because if he has any social life at all beyond an internet forum then I'm sure he realizes what he is asking is ridiculous. But I seriously do have the paper right in front of me and it's wrong. Still waiting on Jerry to tell me on what page he rigorously established his conclusion. I guess he'll have to buy the paper or run to his library first.

Originally posted by trueforger
Instead of trolls I'm gonna call these guys joeycanolis,in dishonor.

I can't decide whether or not it would be worth bringing up his name. Maybe if we just stop fueling its trolling with questions it can't answer, it'll go away.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by weedwhacker


the official story is the 911 commission report and the NIST report, along with the popular media memes like "pancake collapse" and "terror sells" (purposeful misspelling).

It still doesn't explain the freefall speed. If it was caused by the heat from the fire, only those floors nearest the heat source would have been compromised. The resulting collapse would have been halting at some points due to the intact beams lower down.

Freefall means there was nothing to slow the progression of the collapse. It went swoosh straight down.

Next.

Originally posted by Stinkhorn1
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

Lastly, I though ChimpyGeorge Mc idiotBush was too stupid to even think clearly? If you don't blame him, whom do blame? Cheney?

Yes... that's it exactly. Chimpy was put in office because he was an incurious buffoon. Easily controlled through flattery and manipulation. Those 7 minutes he sat on his duff looking like a deer in the headlights while the country was attacked prove he was not a leader by any stretch of the imagination.

reply to post by Angus123


I think your question is totally legitimate, but it's an intuitive thing isn't it? That's the problem, because "free fall" has a technical definition in physics, and the towers did not actually fall at that rate. But nonetheless they did come down very rapidly and with no apparent hesitation at any point. I sympathize with your sentiments completely but someone will knit-pick you technically for it.

reply to post by Angus123

It still doesn't explain the freefall speed.

With respect, that phrase "freefall" is bandied about so much, it has stopped being examined closely.

I pulled out a physics book, for the formula.

Can't type the mathematical notations in here, not on the keyboard.

x = x'o + v'ot + 1/2at squared

x is the position of the object.

x'o is the known positon

v'o is the initial velocity

a is of course, acceleration due to gravity

t is of course, time

IF we start with a known position of the object - let's use the top of one of the Towers - we will put that first in the equation.

417m = 0m + 0m/s (that's the initial v) + 1/2 (9.8m/s)t squared.

Work that down, you get: 834/9.8s squared = t squared

t = the sqare root of 834/9.8

834/9.8 = 85.1

square root of 85.1 = 9.22 seconds.

THAT is the true freefall speed for an object starting at 417 meters above the ground.

Now, watch the videos again to see how long it took for the Towers to collapse.
____________________________________________________________



[edit on 22 September 2009 by weedwhacker]