The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Nicko]

[ you make inane comments about landing speeds and air density with respect to aircraft that flew into the towers.

So you are saying that you do not think it is a LOT EASIER for Professional Pilots to line up their planes on 200 foot wide runways at 200 mph then it is for amateurs to line up airliners on 200 foot wide buildings at 400 and 500 mph.

Very interesting!

psik

I would say that any reasonably sane person would see that smashing a plane into a building is orders of magnitude easier than landing it safely.

You seem to have an obsession with models and simulations, so here's an idea for you. Jump into any "sandbox" video game that allows you to pilot a plane (I recommend Just Cause, but that's just personal preference and availability of aircraft). Land the plane safely. Notice how it is actually somewhat difficult to achive a landing of the quality one would expect from a professional pilot (even though it is made vastly easier than real life by the game's mechanics)? Now take off and fly the plane into a tall building. Notice how it is fucking easy?

Both of these activities are, of course, vastly simpler than their real-life equivalents. It should be obvious, even to the most committed "questioner" of 9/11, that it is a relatively simple matter to hit even a small building with even the most unwieldy of aircraft.

[tolman]

I am not saying what they could and could not do I listed peculiarities about 9/11.

Peculiarities even conspiracy-suspecting aero types don't seem to be finding peculiar.
Which is itself peculiar.

That is one of them. People who had never flown airliners before hitting targets 200 ft wide while flying 400 and 500 mph.

Yes, I'm sure that's impossible.
How could someone possibly line up an aeroplane on an obvious landmark, keep the plane pointing at it, and hope to hit it?
It's not as if they would ever have thought of practising on a PC simulator program or anything.
I'm sure they had as little preparation as possible.

What would be the point of airline companies having engines that could produce that much thrust when it should not be necessary.

Oh, I don't know.
How about having the ability to fly a twin-engine plane on one engine if one fails, as required by various certification systems?
Or to take off in a reasonable distance with maximum load?
Or to have engines that are generally run significantly below maximum continuous safe thrust, (let alone below maximum emergency thrust) for greater efficiency, or to maximise lifetime?

Or are you claiming that these were special souped-up planes?
In which case, why not soup-up some 747s instead?

[psikeyhackr]

I would say that any reasonably sane person would see that smashing a plane into a building is orders of magnitude easier than landing it safely.

I didn't say anything about landing safely. I said line up the plane on the runway.

Why don't you try responding to what I actually say. Does that require too much sanity?

psik

!	MODNOTE The report regarding this post has been dalt with and closed. Durro

[atrasicarius]

Here are the heights and weights of the washers and computations for potential energy and the totals for the top four and all 33. I didn't weigh the washers individually. 3 of the thinnest washers are about the same as 2 of the thickest so I did a linear interpolation from 1.4 to 2.1 ounces, converted to grams. I had the washers weighed before I left the hardware store and they averaged 1.7 oz.

Code: Select all

    height in   grams/1000     G
      meters      kg

1.   0.6238875 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.242910
2.   0.6048375 * 40.309/1000 * 9.81 = 0.239172
3.   0.5857875 * 40.929/1000 * 9.81 = 0.235202
4.   0.5667375 * 41.549/1000 * 9.81 = 0.231000

0.231000+0.235202+0.239172+0.242910=0.948284 Joules

Code: Select all

5.    0.5476875 * 42.170/1000 * 9.81 = 0.226572
6.    0.5286375 * 42.790/1000 * 9.81 = 0.221906
7.    0.5095875 * 43.410/1000 * 9.81 = 0.217009
8.    0.4905375 * 44.030/1000 * 9.81 = 0.211880
9.    0.4714875 * 44.650/1000 * 9.81 = 0.206519
10.   0.4524375 * 45.270/1000 * 9.81 = 0.200927
11.   0.4333875 * 45.890/1000 * 9.81 = 0.195103
12.   0.4143375 * 46.511/1000 * 9.81 = 0.189051
13.   0.3952875 * 47.131/1000 * 9.81 = 0.182763
14.   0.3762375 * 47.751/1000 * 9.81 = 0.176244
15.   0.3571875 * 48.371/1000 * 9.81 = 0.169492
16.   0.3381375 * 48.991/1000 * 9.81 = 0.162509
17.   0.3190875 * 49.611/1000 * 9.81 = 0.155295
18.   0.3000375 * 50.231/1000 * 9.81 = 0.147848
19.   0.2809875 * 50.852/1000 * 9.81 = 0.140173
20.   0.2619375 * 51.472/1000 * 9.81 = 0.132263
21.   0.2428875 * 52.092/1000 * 9.81 = 0.124121
22.   0.2238375 * 52.712/1000 * 9.81 = 0.115747
23.   0.2047875 * 53.332/1000 * 9.81 = 0.107142
24.   0.1857375 * 53.952/1000 * 9.81 = 0.098305
25.   0.1666875 * 54.572/1000 * 9.81 = 0.089236
26.   0.1476375 * 55.193/1000 * 9.81 = 0.079937
27.   0.1285875 * 55.813/1000 * 9.81 = 0.070405
28.   0.1095375 * 56.433/1000 * 9.81 = 0.060641
29.   0.0904875 * 57.053/1000 * 9.81 = 0.050645
30.   0.0714375 * 57.673/1000 * 9.81 = 0.040417
31.   0.0523875 * 58.293/1000 * 9.81 = 0.029958
32.   0.0333375 * 58.914/1000 * 9.81 = 0.019267
33.   0.0142875 * 59.534/1000 * 9.81 = 0.008344

0.008344+ 0.019267+ 0.029958+ 0.040417+ 0.050645+ 0.060641+ 0.070405+ 0.079937+ 0.089236+ 0.098305+ 0.107142+ 0.115747+ 0.124121+ 0.132263+ 0.140173+ 0.147848+ 0.155295+ 0.162509+ 0.169492+ 0.176244+ 0.182763+ 0.189051+ 0.195103+ 0.200927+ 0.206519+ 0.211880+ 0.217009+ 0.221906+ 0.226572+ 0.231000+ 0.235202+ 0.239172 + 0.242910 =

4.778003 Joules of potential energy for entire stack of 33 washers

Here is the calculation for the amount of energy necessary to crush all of the paper loops.

11 *0.118+17 * 2 *0.118+5 * 3 *0.118 = 7.08 Joules to crush all of the loops

So at the normal standing height there is not enough Potential Energy to crush all of the paper loops. 2.3 Joules short.

This is the calculation of the potentil energy of the 4 washers 45 inches up the dowel computed from the bottom of the dowel.

Code: Select all

    height in   grams/1000     G
      meters

1g.   1.2004427 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.467391273
2g    1.1813927 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.459974173
3g.   1.1623427 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.452557073
4g.   1.1432927 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.445139972

0.445139972+0.452557073+0.459974173+0.467391273 =1.825062491 Joules

1.825062491/0.118=15.467 should crush flat 15.5 single loops

Obviously 15 loops were not damaged in one drop. That is close to the total for TWO DROPS.

This is the calculation of the potential energy of the 4 washers 22 inches up the dowel from the top of the stationary stack of washers. The "es" stands for Empty Space because it only makes sense to calculate Potential Energy over a distance of empty space.

Code: Select all

    height in   grams/1000     G
      meters      kg

1es. 0.6337052 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.246732543
2es. 0.6146552 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.239315443
3es. 0.5956052 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.231898343
4es. 0.5765552 * 39.689/1000 * 9.81 = 0.224481242

0.224481242+0.231898343+0.239315443+0.246732543
=0.942427571 Joules

0.942427571/0.118=7.986 should crush flat 8 single loops

So if you watch the video you will see that NINE loops were damaged but only 5 were crushed completely flat. The other 4 took significant but less than total damage and the falling mass was arrested after expending its energy.

So I would have to raise 4 washers 4.2 meters, about 14 feet, into the air in order to get enough energy to crush all of the loops. So obviously some people are going to say the loops are too strong, but how do you make them weaker but still strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD. I say some people just don't want to accept that PHYSICS makes the complete collapse of the two towers on the basis of the energies we are told about utterly IMPOSSIBLE!

Since my model is not a tube-in-tube structure as big a deal as people want to make can be made of that. But even if I knew how to make a good tube-in-tube model I say it can't be implemented without accurate data on the structures. Like how strong were the connections between the core and the flor assemblies relative to the weight of the floor assemblies. I HAVE NEVER SEEN the weight of the floor assemblies specified.

psik

How did you determine the amount of energy necessary to crush the paper loops?

[tolman]

Why don't you try responding to what I actually say.

While we're on that subject, as someone who clearly seems to think that the fraction of a building's total height or weight a collapsing section is, or the fraction of a builing's total height it falls is deeply significant, maybe you could answer my following simple questions, or point out anything about them that you find inadequately described:

psikeyhackr,

Imagine a tall building X, and a double-height building Y which has a top half identical to X.
Given identical failure events at the same absolute distance from the tops of X and Y, where the failure in X leads to progressive collapse of X, do you actually expect the failures in the two buildings to have different histories before the point where the collapse zone reaches the bottom of X?

If so, in what ways would you expect the histories to be different, and what physical mechanisms would you suggest were behind any differences?

[Nicko]

I would say that any reasonably sane person would see that smashing a plane into a building is orders of magnitude easier than landing it safely.

I didn't say anything about landing safely. I said line up the plane on the runway.

Why don't you try responding to what I actually say. Does that require too much sanity?

psik

Last time I checked, "line up the plane on the runway" was implicit in the concept of "landing safely".

Love the hypocrisy of accusing me of not addressing what you said, whilst avoiding the substance of my own post like a young girl who found a spider in the bathtub. At least your posting style is consistently repellent, cowardly and nonfactual.

Do I take it, given that you have changed the subject from controlled demolition to quibbles about pilot skill, that you now concede that there is no evidence to support CD?

[psikeyhackr]

How did you determine the amount of energy necessary to crush the paper loops?

Dropped varying number of washers from various heights until I found what pretty consistently came just short of completely flattening a single loop, 4 washers dropped from a height of 4 inches. So if anything the number might be just a bit low. The double loop took 4 washers from 7 inches but don't crush as flat. I haven't tested the triple loops so I just computed the double and triple loops by multiplying the single by 2 and 3. I doubt that the quality control for the crush strength for loose leaf paper is all that great. Not quite its intended function.

That is the trouble with this WTC business. I haven't seen anyone come up with some number for the amount of energy necessary to collapse a level of the WTC and a comprehensible explanation of how they arrived at it. It usually amounts to, TRUST ME, I'm an expert.

So regardless of what anyone thinks of my model if they are sufficiently interested they can duplicate the results. I believe that is what EXPERIMENTS are for.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

I would say that any reasonably sane person would see that smashing a plane into a building is orders of magnitude easier than landing it safely.

I didn't say anything about landing safely. I said line up the plane on the runway.

Why don't you try responding to what I actually say. Does that require too much sanity?

psik

Last time I checked, "line up the plane on the runway" was implicit in the concept of "landing safely".

Lining up is necessary for landing but since I was comparing it to lining up on a skyscraper the landing part was not relevant.

It was the width of the runway versus the building that mattered. But turning a big airliner at 500 mph has to be significatly different from doing it at 200 mph. I would think that was OBVIOUS to any sane person.

psik

[Nicko]

I didn't say anything about landing safely. I said line up the plane on the runway.

Why don't you try responding to what I actually say. Does that require too much sanity?

psik

Last time I checked, "line up the plane on the runway" was implicit in the concept of "landing safely".

Lining up is necessary for landing but since I was comparing it to lining up on a skyscraper the landing part was not relevant.

It was the width of the runway versus the building that mattered. But turning a big airliner at 500 mph has to be significatly different from doing it at 200 mph. I would think that was OBVIOUS to any sane person.

psik

Your analogy is not relevantly similar then. There are only two possible directions to "line up" to a runway. You can plough a plane into a building from 360 degrees, which was my point. You don't have to hit a building from a specific direction - you just have to hit it. Your point about turning the aircraft would only be relevant if some kind of fancy maneuvering has been observed or shown to be neccessary. It wasn't. The buildings that were hit were easily visible from extreme distances.

The chilling thing about the 9/11 attacks is just how easy they were to do once control of the planes had been taken.

I have proposed a simple, quick, cheap method by which you could demonstrate to yourself just how easy it is to use a plane as a guided missile. Or you could just click on the link I provided in my last post to see the minimal course corrections required to aim the aircraft.

[Nicko]

Another thing does occur to me about the whole "false flag" idea of 9/11.

If we are to believe that a controlled demolition of the twin towers was orchestrated by the US government with the twin motives of justifying war in the Middle East and controlling the domestic population, then we must ask an obvious question: why disguise it as a result of the impact of two planes at all?

For the first goal, "Saudi terrorists are planting bombs in skyscrapers" is just as much a justification for waging war on Afghanistan and Iraq as, "Saudi terrorists are using aeroplanes as guided missiles" (which is to say none, but that is another argument entirely).

For the second goal, the threat of hijack has been used to institute radical extensions of security measures and (according to some) revocation of civil liberties. But the spectre of buildings suddenly demolishing themselves would give the US government the "right" to apply those measures over the entirety of American society, not just airports.

Even the more moderate proposal that al Qaeda wired up the explosives runs into problems. Why not just blow up the WTC (as the had tried to do before and gotten caught), then launch a seperate attack using aircraft whilst the FBI was busy searching every building over ten stories high in the country?

The simple fact is that CD eliminates the need for planes smashing into buildings. Conversely, the incontravertible fact that planes did in fact smash into buildings eliminates the possibility of them also being wired with explosives.

[Durro]

!

MODNOTE Hello, I'd request that all members, particularly Nicko and psikeyhackr, please refrain from making accusations about other members' sanity, mental health or any other personal observations in that vein which may construe a personal attack/insult. Address the arguments, not the people making them please folks. Durro

[psikeyhackr]

Your analogy is not relevantly similar then. There are only two possible directions to "line up" to a runway.

It was lined up alright.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5zvCdD9D1A

psik

[atrasicarius]

How did you determine the amount of energy necessary to crush the paper loops?

Dropped varying number of washers from various heights until I found what pretty consistently came just short of completely flattening a single loop, 4 washers dropped from a height of 4 inches. So if anything the number might be just a bit low. The double loop took 4 washers from 7 inches but don't crush as flat. I haven't tested the triple loops so I just computed the double and triple loops by multiplying the single by 2 and 3. I doubt that the quality control for the crush strength for loose leaf paper is all that great. Not quite its intended function.

That is the trouble with this WTC business. I haven't seen anyone come up with some number for the amount of energy necessary to collapse a level of the WTC and a comprehensible explanation of how they arrived at it. It usually amounts to, TRUST ME, I'm an expert.

So regardless of what anyone thinks of my model if they are sufficiently interested they can duplicate the results. I believe that is what EXPERIMENTS are for.

psik

Alright. I think it's possible that the double and triple loops are stronger than two or three individual loops combined, but that's not real important. What is important is that the total potential energy of the model is less than is required to destroy the entire thing. In that situation, progressive collapse is impossible, because energy is taken out by the components faster than it's put in by gravity. The towers, on the other hand, had way more than enough potential energy to destroy themselves. It does matter what the distribution is, they still had plenty. In that situation, once the collapse started, there was no stopping it. If you want to make a more accurate model, make one where the potential energy of the structure is more than the energy required to destroy it, preferably a lot more.

Another thing: Remember in the second drop, how one of the loops way down towards the bottom was crushed? In a real building, that loop cant support anything anymore, so everything above that falls too.

[tolman]

It was the width of the runway versus the building that mattered. But turning a big airliner at 500 mph has to be significatly different from doing it at 200 mph. I would think that was OBVIOUS to any sane person.
psik

Ah - I understand now.

You think runways are wide not to allow for things like crosswinds, or planes deviating from a straight line after landing (asymmetric braking/reverse thrust), but purely because lining planes up is difficult, and not merely occasionally difficult but inherently difficult, and that the lateral error on landing is often up to 100 feet either way.

[Paul]

[ you make inane comments about landing speeds and air density with respect to aircraft that flew into the towers.

So you are saying that you do not think it is a LOT EASIER for Professional Pilots to line up their planes on 200 foot wide runways at 200 mph then it is for amateurs to line up airliners on 200 foot wide buildings at 400 and 500 mph.

No, relative ease of one thing over another doesn't come into what I was saying. I am saying that your first comment about the speeds and pilots not landing that fast was an irrelevance, as was the issue about the thrust from the engines.
Pilots slow down in the final part of the approach for a number of good reasons, accuracy on approach is not one of them.

Techniques for landing are totally different to techniques for flying towards, over (or into) a 200ft wide target. The configuration of an aircraft (flaps, engines etc.) preparing to land is very different to it's configuration for cruising, doing high speed low passes, or suicidal dives towards a tower.

If a professional pilot wanted to fly an aircraft into a building he would not do it in landing mode, and would almost certainly speed up as he got closer to the building. As he gets nearer to his target he could also gradually trade off potential energy for kinetic energy (more speed), by flying in a slightly more nose down attitude, no need to get any additional thrust from the engines.

In the same way a glider pilot, with NO ENGINE, turns his spare potential energy into kinetic energy and accelerates to very high speeds (for a glider) as he gets closer to home. He can then pass fast and low (less than 100ft) over the finish line and pull up to slow down, trading his kinetic energy for potential energy and easily regaining enough height for a safe circuit and landing.

A common problem with student pilots when learning how to land, is pointing the nose at the runway threshold instead of keeping the nose at the required attitude, and they end up flying too fast, they still arrive in the right place, but with much too much kinetic energy. Not a problem for the hijackers.

You claimed that there are some things that are suspicious about the speed of the aircraft when they hit the towers and the ability of an inexperienced pilot to aim his aircraft at something and hold his course as he accelerates towards it. To experienced pilots and aeronautical engineers, all over the world, there is nothing inexplicable or suspicious about it at all (unless of course they're all part of the conspiracy too).

[Weaver]

Didn't the aircraft hijackers study flying for a while, including simulators of the very planes they were going to be using? It's not like they grabbed the guy in seat 47D and told him to take the wheel ...

[psikeyhackr]

Alright. I think it's possible that the double and triple loops are stronger than two or three individual loops combined, but that's not real important. What is important is that the total potential energy of the model is less than is required to destroy the entire thing. In that situation, progressive collapse is impossible, because energy is taken out by the components faster than it's put in by gravity. The towers, on the other hand, had way more than enough potential energy to destroy themselves. It does matter what the distribution is, they still had plenty. In that situation, once the collapse started, there was no stopping it. If you want to make a more accurate model, make one where the potential energy of the structure is more than the energy required to destroy it, preferably a lot more.

Another thing: Remember in the second drop, how one of the loops way down towards the bottom was crushed? In a real building, that loop cant support anything anymore, so everything above that falls too.

You can't even get accurate data on the distribution of steel and concrete in the building and you want to make CLAIMS about the energy necessary to crush it? As you see I used height and mass to compute the PE of my tower. So if you don't know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC how can you claim to know the Potential Energy of the WTC? You have just decided what you want to believe and are rationalizing backwards.

Those two loops collapsing near the bottom on the second drop just show that my structure was as weak as I could make it. Like I have been saying. There were 17 double loops. That is 50% of the height of my structure. Do you think 50% of the LEVELS in the WTC all had the same amount of steel and therefore the same strength? If I had heavier washers like 10 oz I could make the strength of the supports taper much better and that would not have occurred. Nearly every level would be weaker than the one below. But having 17 with all the same strength meant those at the bottom of the 17 were stressed near their limit. So the dynamic load took them over their max sooner than the double loops above. But notice they did not collapse on the first drop when weaker single loops could absorb the energy.

But as long as you are not demanding accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete on the towers you are talking nonsense because you can't know the energy required to crush every level of the WTC.

So where are the EXPERTS discussing that? Oh yeah, most people are supposed to just BELIEVE the 9/11 Religion.

Great Science!

psik

[Paul]

Didn't the aircraft hijackers study flying for a while, including simulators of the very planes they were going to be using? It's not like they grabbed the guy in seat 47D and told him to take the wheel ...

Indeed. They were far from totally inexperienced.

From wiki

Atta arrived in the United States, together with Marwan al-Shehhi, in June 2000. Both ended up in south Florida at Huffman Aviation where they entered the Accelerated Pilot Program. Atta and Shehhi obtained instrument ratings in November 2000, and continued training on simulators and flight training. Beginning in May 2001, Atta assisted with the arrival of the muscle hijackers. In July 2001, Atta traveled to Spain where he met with bin al-Shibh to exchange information and finalize the plot. In August, Atta traveled on surveillance flights to determine details on how the attacks could be carried out.

Atta began flight training on July 7, 2000 and continued training nearly every day. By the end of July 2000, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones Aviation in Sarasota; however, both took training there only for a brief time. They had problems following instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation. They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly, because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S." In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November 2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December from the Federal Aviation Administration.

[Xaihe]

Those two loops collapsing near the bottom on the second drop just show that my structure was as weak as I could make it. Like I have been saying. There were 17 double loops. That is 50% of the height of my structure. Do you think 50% of the LEVELS in the WTC all had the same amount of steel and therefore the same strength? If I had heavier washers like 10 oz I could make the strength of the supports taper much better and that would not have occurred. Nearly every level would be weaker than the one below. But having 17 with all the same strength meant those at the bottom of the 17 were stressed near their limit. So the dynamic load took them over their max sooner than the double loops above. But notice they did not collapse on the first drop when weaker single loops could absorb the energy.

My emphasis.

Why are you still comparing your paper loops to the steel in the WTC? You've admitted that you knew that your model doesn't represent the WTC. Besides, if you had any idea of how the towers were construct you wouldn't be asking these questions. Why don't you take another look at the details of construction.

Thanks to helpful other members of this forum, this information is readily available for anyone interested in knowing the important bits related to the collapse:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/conspiracy-theories/the-obligatory-9-11-thread-part-ii-t6310-680.html#p351391
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/conspiracy-theories/the-obligatory-9-11-thread-part-ii-t6310-680.html#p351423

[psikeyhackr]

Why are you still comparing your paper loops to the steel in the WTC? You've admitted that you knew that your model doesn't represent the WTC. Besides, if you had any idea of how the towers were construct you wouldn't be asking these questions. Why don't you take another look at the details of construction.

I included an edited clip of Ryan Mackey explaining modeling at the beginning of my video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

You can see the complete version of Mackey's explanation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk

If you can't figure it out, that ain't my problem.

psik