An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ, you seem to accept William Rodriguez' statement at face value that he was aware of an explosion beneath him prior to the plane hitting.

However, his supervisor, who was with him, does not substantiate this and Rodriguez himself only added this to his account long after 9/11. What he said on 9/11 itself was " we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way," Nothing about explosions above and below him.

Can you direct me to any other witnesses of an explosion in the basement of the North Tower before the plane impact ?

From the Naudet video there is no sound of an explosion before the plane impact, just the sound of the plane itself , how do you account for that ?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by DIDtm
Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.

Do you have any inkling as to why your 'analogy' is wildly off the mark? Are you actually suggesting that a human body and the WTCs bear any kind of structural or internal comparisons? You do realise that the WTCs were essentially hollow just as human bodies aren't? Is this as good as 'truther' arguments get?

Thats hilarious.
You question the fact if this is as 'good as the truther arguments get', but completely FAIL to realize that a fellow 'truster', brought forth this particular analogy to begin with.

Genuinely classic. Im bookmarking this one for 'idiocy'.

EDIT: My fault...It wasn't a fellow 'truster', it was YOU!

edit on 15-2-2011 by DIDtm because: mentioned

Actually, I've made no such comparison.It was psikeyhackr in this post that was the first to make that assertion which I was at pains to disabuse him of in this reply..

But thanks for demonstrating for all to see the 'quality' of 'truther' researching ability.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

I don't see how any person in a sane state of mind could have starred that, but anyhow, what did you expect to happen to a large chunk of building falling and hitting the ground?

Most of the building was blown to bits before it came anywhere near in contact with the ground. The video shows this and the relatively small debris pile after the collapse confirms it.

Not necessarily. The debris was spread out and the trade centers had a magical space under them known as a basement. I know, hard to believe, but it does exist.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Actually, I've made no such comparison.It was psikeyhackr in this post that was the first to make that assertion which I was at pains to disabuse him of in this reply..

But thanks for demonstrating for all to see the 'quality' of 'truther' researching ability.

Horse #! You brought up BULLETS and ARROWS. You just didn't mention what bullets and arrows were used on. But everybody KNOWS what bullets and arrows are used on. You can't escape an implication that obvious.

I was simply explicit about it so now you can honestly say you didn't mention animate targets. But what else are bullets used on for not just practice and competition?

psik

Originally posted by psyop911

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

Why would the insurance companies pay out if they knew the collapse was suspect? Do they not care about money at all?

they were probably in on it! wow, what a koinkadink, right?

If you knew a horse was going to win a race, you would presumably allow people to back it with you?

That's what you're essentially saying the insurance companies have done. It's not very likely, is it?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Actually, I've made no such comparison.It was psikeyhackr in this post that was the first to make that assertion which I was at pains to disabuse him of in this reply..

But thanks for demonstrating for all to see the 'quality' of 'truther' researching ability.

Horse #! You brought up BULLETS and ARROWS. You just didn't mention what bullets and arrows were used on. But everybody KNOWS what bullets and arrows are used on. You can't escape an implication that obvious.

I was simply explicit about it so now you can honestly say you didn't mention animate targets. But what else are bullets used on for not just practice and competition?

psik

Nice language there, psikeyhackr.



I brought up bullets and arrow as what I thought would be simple examples of well-known projectiles and you took it upon yourself to decide that I simply MUST be comparing the WTCs to live creatures. It's nice to know that in 'truther' world, target practise happens on live targets. I simply MUST remember that little bit of intelligence.

You made a fool of yourself without any help from anybody else. Most people caught out on such an obvious faux pas would do their best not to keep rolling in it. Congratulations! You're unusual that way.

Double post for some twisted reason

The first person to bring up the topic of bullets on this thread - Fitzgibbon

Hmmm. I guess bullets and arrows mustn't work in your world either.

Page 2, post 1.


The first person to declare bullets as irrelevant - psikeyhackr

Nitwits compare inanimate bullets hitting animate masses like people and animals that have larger masses. What will a bullet do to a wooden telephone pole? Airliners are inanimate and skyscrapers are inanimate. Skyscrapers do not have hearts and muscles and knees that can bend.

Page 2, post 2.


The first person to use the bullet / death analogy as a point of debate - FDNY343

Yep, now, do the math for the kinetic energy involved in the impact, and do the math for the heat energy released by the fuel, and then the heat energy for the resulting fires. Hell, a bullet weighs about .25 ounces. Most people weigh about 140 lbs. Which translates to 2240 ounces. So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?

Page 2, post 7.


Can we please keep all this name calling down, the facts are what is important.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Actually, I've made no such comparison.It was psikeyhackr in this post that was the first to make that assertion which I was at pains to disabuse him of in this reply..

But thanks for demonstrating for all to see the 'quality' of 'truther' researching ability.

REALLY?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm. I guess bullets and arrows mustn't work in your world either.

You are the one who originally mentioned bullets and arrows.
Your quote above.
Found Here

What was that about 'quality truther researching ability'?
So proven WRONG, you are..............
Seems to be a common trend.

Seems your words can be thrown right back in your face.

You made a fool of yourself without any help from anybody else. Most people caught out on such an obvious faux pas would do their best not to keep rolling in it. Congratulations! You're unusual that way.

Originally posted by kwakakev
The first person to bring up the topic of bullets on this thread - Fitzgibbon

Hmmm. I guess bullets and arrows mustn't work in your world either.

Page 2, post 1.

Yes. I do recall bringing them up as an exemplar. psikeyhackr's hobby horse on the matter seems to be that the only use of bullets or arrows are to kill things. I've patiently (and without swearing, I might add) pointed out his apparent misunderstanding of my point, that of comparing a bullet and a speeding airliner as transmitters of kinetic energy to static objects. psikeyhackr seems unable to see this analogy.

Originally posted by kwakakev
The first person to declare bullets as irrelevant - psikeyhackr

Nitwits compare inanimate bullets hitting animate masses like people and animals that have larger masses. What will a bullet do to a wooden telephone pole? Airliners are inanimate and skyscrapers are inanimate. Skyscrapers do not have hearts and muscles and knees that can bend.

Page 2, post 2.

psikeyhackr declaring them irrelevant matters only in psikeyhackr's world. psikeyhackr seems to think that the WTCs were most like a telephone pole although for the life of me, I can't recall ever seeing a hollow telephone pole and my understanding is that telephone poles as a general rule aren't hollow.

So psikeyhackr's analogy is at best suspect.

I'm keeping my stick on the ice and I trust that psikeyhackr will attempt to do the same without resorting to swearing again.

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Actually, I've made no such comparison.It was psikeyhackr in this post that was the first to make that assertion which I was at pains to disabuse him of in this reply..

But thanks for demonstrating for all to see the 'quality' of 'truther' researching ability.

REALLY?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm. I guess bullets and arrows mustn't work in your world either.

You are the one who originally mentioned bullets and arrows.
Your quote above.
Found Here

What was that about 'quality truther researching ability'?
So proven WRONG, you are..............
Seems to be a common trend.

Seems your words can be thrown right back in your face.

You made a fool of yourself without any help from anybody else. Most people caught out on such an obvious faux pas would do their best not to keep rolling in it. Congratulations! You're unusual that way.

edit on 15-2-2011 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)

And as I just pointed out to kwakakev in this post, from the get-go I've been using bullets and arrows as exemplars, "comparing a bullet and a speeding airliner as transmitters of kinetic energy to static objects".

It seems you and psikeyhackr are stuck on the notion of animate objects as receptors of the KE. Why is that?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Yes. I do recall bringing them up as an exemplar. psikeyhackr's hobby horse on the matter seems to be that the only use of bullets or arrows are to kill things. I've patiently (and without swearing, I might add) pointed out his apparent misunderstanding of my point, that of comparing a bullet and a speeding airliner as transmitters of kinetic energy to static objects. psikeyhackr seems unable to see this analogy.

I did not say kill things. I said animate targets.

I proposed telephone poles as more similar to the WTC because they are inanimate.

Now you want to switch to hollowness as a relevant issue. Are you saying bullets and arrows are primarily intended for hollow inanimate targets. What might they be? Bee hives?

Please continue the absurdity. It is hilarious. LOL

I've been using bullets and arrows as exemplars, "comparing a bullet and a speeding airliner as transmitters of kinetic energy to static objects".

It seems you and psikeyhackr are stuck on the notion of animate objects as receptors of the KE.

If you don't know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers then how are you going to compute what that kinetic energy could have done?

This calculation is based on the start of the oscillation of the south tower, it moved 15 inches in 2 seconds.

0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 550 * 150
0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 82,500
(x + 150) = 193,600
x = 193,450 tons

Math ain't physics and different heights of the building moved various distances and that does not take into account the stiffness of the steel which made the oscillation possible.

psik

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by FDNY343

So, a bullet weighs just 1/8960th of a person, and it will kill you. I wonder, how could something so small kill us? I mean, we outweigh the bullet MANY times over. But yet, I don't think you wanna stand in front of one, do you?

Completely illogical statement.
Does a bullet, which weighs 1/8960th of a person cause all the bones in the body to break and basically cremate so the body falls down into a lard ball?
Or does a bullet cause extreme interior damage to organs, muscles, etc and cause blood loss which in turn creates death?
Or it hits the heart or brain and the failure of either one of those cause death?

Try again.

It's an analogy. Way to miss the point though!

You trusters are the first to point out any analogy that isn't directly comparable.
This analogy fails in every way.
Shame on you..you know better, but still stoop to such levels.
I guess that happens when running out of arguments.

No, it is a fine anology as to why the plane should not have bounced off the towers.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Most of the building was blown to bits before it came anywhere near in contact with the ground. The video shows this and the relatively small debris pile after the collapse confirms it.

Really?

See this photo and the large chunks of the building?

They're HUGE.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

This calculation is based on the start of the oscillation of the south tower, it moved 15 inches in 2 seconds. 0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 550 * 150
0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 82,500
(x + 150) = 193,600
x = 193,450 tons

Do you have some more information about this formula, it is new to me. Is this the force applied when the aeroplane hit the tower?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Yes. I do recall bringing them up as an exemplar. psikeyhackr's hobby horse on the matter seems to be that the only use of bullets or arrows are to kill things. I've patiently (and without swearing, I might add) pointed out his apparent misunderstanding of my point, that of comparing a bullet and a speeding airliner as transmitters of kinetic energy to static objects. psikeyhackr seems unable to see this analogy.

I did not say kill things. I said animate targets.

Since inanimate objects can't be killed, would you be so kind as to explain precisely what meaningful semantic difference you perceive between "things" and "animate targets" in this context?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I proposed telephone poles as more similar to the WTC because they are inanimate.

While interesting, beyond that shallow similarity do you perceive why the WTCs were not at all like telephone poles? Aside from height difference and wood not being a notable component of the WTCs' construction that is?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Now you want to switch to hollowness as a relevant issue.

Ah! You see their difference. Of course, it never would have occurred to me to offer up a solid object as an exemplar for an essentially hollow one in the first place. That's why I tried to point out to you the singular unsuitability of telephone poles as exemplars for anything other than telephone poles and maybe trees.

Certainly not for the WTCs.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Are you saying bullets and arrows are primarily intended for hollow inanimate targets. What might they be? Bee hives?

I didn't offer up ANYTHING as a primary intended use for bullets or arrows. That's a derail you seem particularly obsessed with.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
I've been using bullets and arrows as exemplars, "comparing a bullet and a speeding airliner as transmitters of kinetic energy to static objects".

It seems you and psikeyhackr are stuck on the notion of animate objects as receptors of the KE.

If you don't know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers then how are you going to compute what that kinetic energy could have done?

Unless you're proposing that the WTCs were solid forms, the exact distribution of steel and concrete is irrelevant. AA11 and UAL175 were chewed up in a manner not dissimilar to how a cheese grater works.

Just for clarity, I'm using a cheese grater as an analogy. I'm not suggesting that the WTCs were created as some sort of oversized kitchen tool.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This calculation is based on the start of the oscillation of the south tower, it moved 15 inches in 2 seconds. 0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 550 * 150
0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 82,500
(x + 150) = 193,600
x = 193,450 tons

Do you have some more information about this formula, it is new to me. Is this the force applied when the aeroplane hit the tower?

No, the kinetic energy of the impact can be calculated from the weight of the plane, say 150,000 Kg ( this may be an underestimate because the maximum take-off weight for a Boeing 767-200 is 179,000 Kg ) and the speed of 586 mph which equates to 261 meters per second. And the result is 5.1 gigajoules which equates to about one and a quarter tons of tnt.

This is without considering the billions of joules released by the combustion of 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This calculation is based on the start of the oscillation of the south tower, it moved 15 inches in 2 seconds. 0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 550 * 150
0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 82,500
(x + 150) = 193,600
x = 193,450 tons

Do you have some more information about this formula, it is new to me. Is this the force applied when the aeroplane hit the tower?

I don't think so.

M*V/m^s is for impact energy.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This calculation is based on the start of the oscillation of the south tower, it moved 15 inches in 2 seconds. 0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 550 * 150
0.426136364 mph * (x + 150) = 82,500
(x + 150) = 193,600
x = 193,450 tons

Do you have some more information about this formula, it is new to me. Is this the force applied when the aeroplane hit the tower?

It is not energy, it is momentum.

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2) * v3

v1 = 550 == velocity of plane against south tower.

m1 = 150 = mass (weight) of plane

Yeah, I know mass and weight are not the same thing it ain't relevant in this calculation.

The velocity, v2, of the building was ZERO before impact.

So I was solving for the equivalent mass of the building that moved due to the impact.

letsrollforums.com...

psik

reply to post by FDNY343


That is a great picture of the building completely exploding and launching what you call "large pieces" off to the side, the dust clouds are amazing, somehow they are going upwards and outwards,

You people are the definition of "insane" to think that this is a collapse of gravity.

Oh wait, the planes energy that hit it an hour ago still exists, that helps it to explode, and man, the super powers of fire too !! How about those damaged girders !! We gotta factor that in as well !!