still...if your source is valid then i can claim this one to be valid
I am a mechanic and have 4 years experience overhauling 767s and 737's. I've done probably 30 engine removals/installs of both the CF6 and CFM56 on the 767/737....and those most certainly arent from a CFM56.Besides, the videos show a 767 hitting the South Tower - I know a 767 when I see one.
Originally posted by jaden101
aaahhh...so no someone managed to come along with a freshly smashed up engine and plant in a street in the middle of the most densely populated piece of land on the planet and noone noticed?...mmmm...rightyo then
As opposed to the engine slamming against the outer wall, Flying out of the outer wall. Then landing neatly right underneath the scaffolding.
And, that population argument is lame, have you been to manhattan? This is coming from a native New Yorker, btw.
Originally posted by jaden101
you dont actually have to take that force into effect...unless the entire half million tonnes is being levied against the plane at the surface area...which isn't the case...
The plane is hitting WTC on 5 floors. which is roughly 5 floors divided by 110 = 4.5%. Which is approximately 22,500 tons (4.5% of 500,000). The 767 is supposed to weigh 140 tons - which is 0.6% of the mass it impacted.
Originally posted by jaden101
i've given you the video of the accurate science simulation of what happened to the plane as it entered the building...i guess you chose not to watch it
Yes, I watched the vid put together by a professor of computer science at purdue: Christoph Hoffman not a structural engineer or an aviation expert.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/people/faculty/cmh/
What's your point?
Originally posted by jaden101
i'm sure if the plane had hit the building with the maximum surface area i.e the bottom of the top of the plane hit...then it may well have not penetrated....alas i'm not a physicist so i couldn't comment...but that seems to be what you're implying..that the plane should just crumple up and bounce off
Then your reading comprehension is poor, no offense. I stated this from the get go:
Originally posted by Classic NES
I'm not saying that it was impossible to penetrate the outer wall.
But, the idea that the plane would not show any contortion or that the wing tips would at least buckle is hogwash.
Originally posted by jaden101
oh...and you're point about the engine...identified by the Karl Schwartz?
Who the hell is that?
No, my point is that the engines are wrong.
Originally posted by jaden101
still...if your source is valid then i can claim this one to be valid
😆
And, you scolded me for believing the videos on Youtube. Tut-Tut Jaden, what analysis was offered from this so called "Mechanic". He simply stated: "I'm a mechanic and those engines are 767 for sure". No, illustrations or elaborations on the differences. I'm not buying it, because I could do the same.
Originally posted by jaden101
what happened to the plane...did it exit the other side of the building???...or did it get smashed to bits?exactly..
After displaying impossible physics on impact, a couple of so-called plane pieces were found.
But, hey, the Engine busted through the outer wall and exited through the other side. slamming through floors with reinforced steel.
The plane is hitting WTC on 5 floors. which is roughly 5 floors divided by 110 = 4.5%. Which is approximately 22,500 tons (4.5% of 500,000). The 767 is supposed to weigh 140 tons - which is 0.6% of the mass it impacted.
not taing into consideration velocity there are you...and you're saying across 5 floors but it didn't impact the entire 5 floors did it...as in the entire facade of the 5 floors
although a basic calculation of mass/velocity/energy which you can find calculators for online gives the pounds per square foot impact energy at 2.3584 x 10^9...damn that's alot of energy
And, you scolded me for believing the videos on Youtube. Tut-Tut Jaden, what analysis was offered from this so called "Mechanic". He simply stated: "I'm a mechanic and those engines are 767 for sure". No, illustrations or elaborations on the differences. I'm not buying it, because I could do the same.
you already have done the same...on many occasions and even about this particular issue so i fail to see why you should be laughing...cause you're effectively laughing at yourself
Yes, I watched the vid put together by a professor of computer science at purdue: Christoph Hoffman not a structural engineer or an aviation expert.
yes...the "video" was "put together" by him...but it was based on work by among other Mete Sozen who is "the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering in Purdue's School of Civil Engineering." and who also done direct work on the 9/11 investigation and who's work i've referenced before as well as terry bowen of the civil engineering lab
i did find this comment from Sozen to be quite revealing though
"Damage resulting solely from the metal fuselage, engines and other aircraft parts is not as great as that resulting from the mass of fluids on board. You could think of the aircraft as a sausage skin. Its mass is tiny compared to the plane's fluid contents."
i guess that means that if the planes had a spent fuel load the damage would have been considerably less...
Who the hell is that?
that's the person who's "research" that all the conspiracy theorist websites that say engine is wrong is based on
Originally posted by jaden101
not taing into consideration velocity there are you...and you're saying across 5 floors but it didn't impact the entire 5 floors did it...as in the entire facade of the 5 floorsyes...the "video" was "put together" by him...but it was based on work by among other Mete Sozen who is "the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering in Purdue's School of Civil Engineering." and who also done direct work on the 9/11 investigation and who's work i've referenced before as well as terry bowen of the civil engineering lab
i did find this comment from Sozen to be quite revealing though
Well, at that angle, the entire Airframe would have made contact with said number of reinforced floors. Your theory that it ripped to shreds as it made impact with the outer wall has a detractor:
Apparently the plane wing was inact, as stanley hid under his magic desk. Too bad Sozen wasn't in the building hiding with stanley in his indestructible desk. He would have known that the plane was ok.
Originally posted by jaden101
although a basic calculation of mass/velocity/energy which you can find calculators for online gives the pounds per square foot impact energy at 2.3584 x 10^9...damn that's alot of energy
That also applies to the plane, since it's being hit by a section of the building with alot more mass than it. The same delicate airframes mean't for flying cutting through steel walls and reinforced floors. Nevermind the video that show's the plane melting into the building.
Originally posted by jaden101
you already have done the same...on many occasions and even about this particular issue so i fail to see why you should be laughing...cause you're effectively laughing at yourself
Yes, I'm laughing at myself after I proved that you didn't read my post. 🙂
Originally posted by jaden101
i guess that means that if the planes had a spent fuel load the damage would have been considerably less...
Which explains why the wing tips showed no damage and the plastic nose cone with a blunt surface pierced right on with no real buckling.
Originally posted by jaden101
that's the person who's "research" that all the conspiracy theorist websites that say engine is wrong is based on
"All" the websites, Bullshit.
Apparently the plane wing was inact, as stanley hid under his magic desk. Too bad Sozen wasn't in the building hiding with stanley in his indestructible desk. He would have known that the plane was ok
so apparently the plane can pass through the building then...which goes completely against the point you were initially trying to make by saying it cant...way to go in disproving yourself mate...well done
Well, at that angle, the entire Airframe would have made contact with said number of reinforced floors. Your theory that it ripped to shreds as it made impact with the outer wall has a detractor:
1: the floors weren't "reinforced" anything...
2: its your theory that says the wings should have been ripped to shreds...and its you that saying that the videos are impossible because that didn't happen....hence your point here and your point above both disprove yourself...so once again...way to go sherlock
melting
you can clearly see impact damage as the nose of the plane goes in....i suggest you look again...
Which explains why the wing tips showed no damage and the plastic nose cone with a blunt surface pierced right on with no real buckling.
the simple fact is you cant prove either of that either way from the video...
Originally posted by jaden101
so apparently the plane can pass through the building then...which goes completely against the point you were initially trying to make by saying it cant...way to go in disproving yourself mate...well done
Then you obviously missed the point, mate. Never said that the plane could not crash against the building, I don't know where your getting that. I said that the way it happened in the video is B.S.
Originally posted by jaden101
1: the floors weren't "reinforced" anything...2: its your theory that says the wings should have been ripped to shreds...and its you that saying that the videos are impossible because that didn't happen....hence your point here and your point above both disprove yourself...so once again...way to go sherlock
1. Yes, they were reinforced with concrete.
2. Wrong, I said that the wings should not have penetrated the way they did in the video. furthermore, that the wings should have buckled or that the wing tip should have clipped. Furthermore, you really need to pay attention. I said that the videos are impossible because of two reasons:
1. The impossible crash physics
2. The fact that the plane melted into the building.
Also, the video I posted was too show you how full of crap the official story is. I don't support stanley's story, because I think he is lying. But, he's one of the official plane witnesses. So, if your calling him a liar as well, then your gonna prove my point that the official story is crock shit. How can he survive the plane explosion by hiding in his desk, you know it's B.S. jaden. Yet, he's an official witness, do you believe him?
Originally posted by jaden101
you can clearly see impact damage as the nose of the plane goes in....i suggest you look again...
And, you can clearly see the building heal up and the lack of a hole during impact.
If you can't see that, then your either blind or lying.
Originally posted by jaden101
the simple fact is you cant prove either of that either way from the video...
OMG are you kidding me? Show me the wing tip buckling or any damage to the plane. Unless the damage is so small it cannot be seen which is hilarious considering there should be a helluva alot more damage.
1. Yes, they were reinforced with concrete.
you dont reinforce something with concrete...you reinforce concrete with something else...usually steel..and that not the way the WTC was built as a building with reinforced concrete floors and 110 of them would simply be too heavy...it was merely light steel frame trusses with concrete slabs laid on top as the flooring
Then you obviously missed the point, mate. Never said that the plane could not crash against the building, I don't know where your getting that. I said that the way it happened in the video is B.S.
make up your mind son eh....one minute you're saying the plane cant pass through the building "the way is shows on the vid" then next you're putting up evidence of witnesses saying it did exactly that.
1. The impossible crash physics
which you fail to actually use thus your points are irrelevant
2. The fact that the plane melted into the building.
it didn't "melt" into the building at all though did it...it left a ****in gaping big hole both in the video you posted...and in every other video
Also, the video I posted was too show you how full of crap the official story is. I don't support stanley's story, because I think he is lying. But, he's one of the official plane witnesses. So, if your calling him a liar as well, then your gonna prove my point that the official story is crock shit. How can he survive the plane explosion by hiding in his desk, you know it's B.S. jaden. Yet, he's an official witness, do you believe him?
so you post his evidence but now you're saying its not evidence...as for how he can survive...without knowing exactly where he was in relation to the plane strike (which didn't cover all the floors where it impacted) then i cant say...but clearly people did survive relatively close to the impact point because there is photographs of people standing in the gaping hole that the plane left
OMG are you kidding me? Show me the wing tip buckling or any damage to the plane. Unless the damage is so small it cannot be seen which is hilarious considering there should be a helluva alot more damage.
in reality the plane took a fraction of a second to enter the building...at a standard frame rate camera you've no chance of picking up the action/reaction damage....i've no doubt that if a high frame rate camera zoomed in to high detail you would see the damage occuring
your argument is the equivalent of someone posting a video of a person from distance and then saying...you cant see their eyes or their fingers therefor it is a fake....completely flawed logic
And, you can clearly see the building heal up and the lack of a hole during impact.
we've discussed this video before...if you cant see the exterior of the building clearly...you're not going to see the damage to the building either...the exterior of the building on this zoomed footage looks like a solid grey mass...but it wasn't...hence the reason you dont see any detail
Originally posted by jaden101
you dont reinforce something with concrete...you reinforce concrete with something else...usually steel..and that not the way the WTC was built as a building with reinforced concrete floors and 110 of them would simply be too heavy...it was merely light steel frame trusses with concrete slabs laid on top as the flooring
So, like I said they were reinforced. Your being pedantic for absolutely no reason. 😬
Originally posted by jaden101
make up your mind son eh....one minute you're saying the plane cant pass through the building "the way is shows on the vid" then next you're putting up evidence of witnesses saying it did exactly that.
Read my post son, I said the man is lying. I asked you what you think about him, since his scenario is so different from the simulation you posted. Still no answer and I'm not surprised.
Originally posted by jaden101
which you fail to actually use thus your points are irrelevant
Nah, you just refuse to acknowledge them. I know that in physics during an impact, the stronger material tends to win. The idea that the plane would exhibit less damage then the building is almost as bad as your asinine "Damage is too fast for the camera".
The plane went through un harmed, which is impossible.
Originally posted by jaden101
it didn't "melt" into the building at all though did it...
It did, your either lying or blind if you cannot see that. The hole came after the plane was absorbed into the building.
Originally posted by jaden101
so you post his evidence but now you're saying its not evidence...as for how he can survive...without knowing exactly where he was in relation to the plane strike (which didn't cover all the floors where it impacted) then i cant say...but clearly people did survive relatively close to the impact point because there is photographs of people standing in the gaping hole that the plane left
I posted evidence from the official version that contradicts itself. I don't care if it contradicts itself, because I do not support. Also, that's not what I asked. I'm asking you if you support his story?
Originally posted by jaden101
in reality the plane took a fraction of a second to enter the building...at a standard frame rate camera you've no chance of picking up the action/reaction damage....i've no doubt that if a high frame rate camera zoomed in to high detail you would see the damage occuring
That is the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard in my life. The damage was so fast that the camera could not pick it up?! hysterical
Again, where was the explosion when the engines hit. . .I'm sorry melted into the wall? Was it faster than the camera could pick up because the plane was going to fast? hysterical
I want you too support this ridiculous claim with facts or else I'm gonna draw the conclusion that your in denial.
Originally posted by jaden101
we've discussed this video before...if you cant see the exterior of the building clearly...you're not going to see the damage to the building either...the exterior of the building on this zoomed footage looks like a solid grey mass...but it wasn't...hence the reason you dont see any detail
So, like I said they were reinforced. Your being pedantic for absolutely no reason.
i suggest you go look up what reinforced concrete means...
Nah, you just refuse to acknowledge them. I know that in physics during an impact, the stronger material tends to win. The idea that the plane would exhibit less damage then the building is almost as bad as your asinine "Damage is too fast for the camera".
no true whatsoever...but hey...we've argued it to death
That is the biggest load of horse shit I've ever heard in my life. The damage was so fast that the camera could not pick it up?!
mmm...yeah..ok then sport...i suggest you do a little research into the pentagon strike...2 frames...i shows the very tip of the plane entering the shot...the next shows the explosion...hence...it moved too fast for the camera to pick up on it...its a fact of life...
You don't need to see any detail on the wall, Jaden. We can see explosions and we can see when the "reactions to impact". How do windows or lack of windows effect this change this?
it matter cause you're claiming you cant see damage on the building...when you cant even see the building properly...capiche???
Again, where was the explosion when the engines hit. . .I'm sorry melted into the wall? Was it faster than the camera could pick up because the plane was going to fast?
you only need to see how long it takes for any of the explosions to occur from any of the points in the building to see how long these reactions take to occur
Originally posted by jaden101mmm...yeah..ok then sport...i suggest you do a little research into the pentagon strike...2 frames...i shows the very tip of the plane entering the shot...the next shows the explosion...hence...it moved too fast for the camera to pick up on it...its a fact of life...
Except that:
-The view is much closer in WTC
-You see the damage upon impact
- And, the plane is clearly in veiw in WTC, you can see the wings, engines, and all that stuff.
Like I said to you, damage is in conjunction with the plane. We can clearly see the plane impacting the wtc, frame by frame. We cannot see the same for the pentagon. It's too far and it's too way too fast. The camera s alsop better in WTC, because we can see the plane as it impacts. Your comparison is ridiculous, nevermind that the damage can be seen in the pentagon. The plane seems to explode right on impact. The WTC melts, doesn't form a hole and the explosion is delayed.
Originally posted by jaden101
no true whatsoever...but hey...we've argued it to death
And, I provided facts, an alluminum plane cannot enter a steel building with no visible damage done to it's frame upon impact.
Originally posted by jaden101it matter cause you're claiming you cant see damage on the building...when you cant even see the building properly...capiche???
Even though we see a huge fireball after the plane enters when it should have been before. Never mind that we can still see the building react, but it happens at the wrong time? So, which is it, do we see damage or is it impossible to see damage due to video quality despite the fact that you can see damage I.E. puff's of smoke and explosions?
Originally posted by jaden101you only need to see how long it takes for any of the explosions to occur from any of the points in the building to see how long these reactions take to occur
The explosion would happen on impact, how the f*ck could engines of a fueled plane have a delayed explosion upon impact. . .Allah?
Originally posted by jaden101you can even see it on the gif you posted
Ignoring the fact that the nose cone sparked. I'm talking about the huge explosion that left another hole. That's when the plane blew up, how could that be delayed?
Where is the fire from the engines as they impact ?
Where is the explosions from the engines?
Where is the damage from the impact?
1. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."
2. The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire.
3. The total collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, AND WTC 7 (which was never even hit by a plane!) were all perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The three straight down collapses were all identical in appearance to well engineered, controlled implosions. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now!
Originally posted by Katsu
1. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."2. The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire.
3. The total collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, AND WTC 7 (which was never even hit by a plane!) were all perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The three straight down collapses were all identical in appearance to well engineered, controlled implosions. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now!
1: if you're going to quote somebody...here is Robertson's full quote regarding the towers which i've already posted in this thread but you clearly chose to ignore
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth. And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Uh, just absolutely no comparison between the two.
and its leslie robertson....and his own companies website has a brief part about 9/11 on it
2. The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire.
2: the building didnt just collapse from fire though did it...it had a plane hit it...and steel doesnt have to melt...at half its melting temperature is loses 90% of its intergrity...i beleive off hand that this is somewhere around 800-900oC and temperatures of 1200oC were achieved in the fire
The total collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, AND WTC 7 (which was never even hit by a plane!) were all perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The three straight down collapses were all identical in appearance to well engineered, controlled implosions. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now!
now...is it me or is there massive chunks of debri around about half and even the whole width of the building away from where the tower is?
again?...straight down?...dont think so
would a straight down collapse cause debri to be spread over that large an area????...cant say i've ever seen it and i've now seen 10 high rise demolitions
The first quote you used actually proves a point I try to explain often: The plane was going at an amazing speed. Now, if that was a heavy factor is taking the plane out then the entire top half should come off immediatly as it hits. Energy in these sorts of situations acts in bursts so it does not fester and just add on to the weight of the plane.
Again, with a weakening frame, it should bend and break at a point and not collapse. That makes no sense.
It did not lost 90% of it's integrity. Heat does spread through metal but it certainly is not at the same strength in each spot. No could never argue that it was as weak at the 40th floor as it was at the point that it was hit. That is the only way the collapse the towers had would even make much sense. Also, for as I know, most fuels can't burn over 800 C before they burn out... so, yea...
Originally posted by chithappens
The first quote you used actually proves a point I try to explain often: The plane was going at an amazing speed. Now, if that was a heavy factor is taking the plane out then the entire top half should come off immediatly as it hits. Energy in these sorts of situations acts in bursts so it does not fester and just add on to the weight of the plane.Again, with a weakening frame, it should bend and break at a point and not collapse. That makes no sense.
It did not lost 90% of it's integrity. Heat does spread through metal but it certainly is not at the same strength in each spot. No could never argue that it was as weak at the 40th floor as it was at the point that it was hit. That is the only way the collapse the towers had would even make much sense. Also, for as I know, most fuels can't burn over 800 C before they burn out... so, yea...
were you sleepy when you wrote this cause, no offence, it doesnt make alot of sense
you're saying that the plane should've sliced the top of the building off???...maybe if it was as wide as the building
yes..the steel did lose 90% of its integrity and not melt...this is scientific fact..
steel is actually a very poor conductor of heat and its an argument that conspiracy theorists have tried to use that the energy needed to heat ALL of the steel in the building is far more that the fire would ever produce...but it doesn't need to heat the whole building to weakening point nor does it need to heat a small part of the building to melting point
i suggest you read ryan mackay's work available here
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf
read page 21 to be specific about heat within the building
Look, I don't know how much you know about chemistry and the such but there's no way that could happen (integrity of the frame losing so much of it's strength) without a controlled enviornment. It would not take anywhere near 90% to fall and it would have fallen and at much greater angle. I have a decent amount of experience with this stuff (former mechanical engineering major; dad was working as one for American Airlines when 9/11 happened).
Most people reading these reports are just like a patient coming to a docor: they are not sure so they need him to tell them exactly what's going on because they don't know anyway - he lies or tell the truth, they can only assume he is being honest.
Originally posted by chithappens
Look, I don't know how much you know about chemistry and the such but there's no way that could happen (integrity of the frame losing so much of it's strength) without a controlled enviornment. It would not take anywhere near 90% to fall and it would have fallen and at much greater angle. I have a decent amount of experience with this stuff (former mechanical engineering major; dad was working as one for American Airlines when 9/11 happened).Most people reading these reports are just like a patient coming to a docor: they are not sure so they need him to tell them exactly what's going on because they don't know anyway - he lies or tell the truth, they can only assume he is being honest.
as i've mentioned before i'm studying for a pHD in forensic science that includes a large part on fires and explosions so i know quite a bit about it...it also includes a small module on metallurgy
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
from the official nist report..take from it what you will
if you're a mechanical engineering major then i would expect you to know the properties of mild steel...
however its all in Ryan Mackay's paper across 2 pages....he's a NASA engineer and knows more than i do about the metallurgical side of it