9/11 what do you think?

[NoDrama]

Go about 9 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qcr2hh9RQRw. Would you not describe that sound as an explosion...?

The big jet hitting the trees? Didn't sound like an explosion to me at all. Sounds like an impact, a crash.


:28 seconds in, that is what an explosion sounds like. Not an impact sound like the plane video.
[video=youtube;Ba8jTkRWiwI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba8jTkRWiwI[/video]

 

[Doer]

No. The floor sagged. The columns of concrete had been very happy as their small part of the tube wall load.....

BURST

I saw it. OK, without a noose, this time. Get up on a chair that is on stacked croûtons under each leg. Those are some columns. Your columns, not meant to represent anything else. Never mind. I'll lower you.

Gentle....Be still. Now take a big bong hit and cough.

Free fall. Croûtons burst. You're in free fall. Forget what I said about the rope. I was Just Kidding.

 

[Mike Young]

Because the firefighter knows what molten steel likes like compared to any other molten material? Because the steel was actually molten and not just heated? No pictures? No videos? This was going on for weeks at this huge site and there's nothing?

The fact that steel is red does not mean that it is molten. The first one is molten steel; the second is merely heated:

View attachment 2688717View attachment 2688718

Your video suggests that the "World Trade Center cross" resulted from two pieces of steel melting together. Please substantiate this. My understanding is that the World Trade Center was full of t-beams and that the cross was just a t-beam. I have never heard anyone claim that it was two previously unrelated pieces of steel that melted together. Sure makes for a better story, though--much better than mentioning that the building was full of t-beams (which would make this cross not particularly special).

Yeah, can't trust those shady no-good firefighters. I know that eyewitness testimony can be about as useful as tits on a boar in these high intensity situations. I don't give two shits about the cross. That's religious feeble minded nonsense. Molten or "semi molten" steel shouldn't have been present to begin with, let alone weeks after the fact.

 

[tokeprep]

As I said before, how do u explain the absolute smooth collapse of a structure that size with upper damage? Never in the history of modern man has this happened. If u have some math or footage to prove this I am salivating to c it. Plz enlighten us brother. Physics will not allow for mass to simply move aside because something with less mass is moving. In other words it would have slowed or tipped in a direction. But not smoothly straight down. Lemme guess...u didn't c the angular cut steel beams found in the rubble either?

Please tell me, when in history has a 400,000 pound plane smashed into a building, igniting an almost full loads of jet fuel and damaging critical core columns? Never. Don't you think it's reasonable that an unprecedented event never before seen might have an unprecedented result?

 

[Doer]

Most of an entire fire crew...gone...

 

[tokeprep]

What ur forgetting is how can somthing go from zero to free fall that quickly if the supports r still there? Check the footage again. Nearly instant acceleration with an intact base. How is this possible? It isn't unless u remove its supports. No comment on angle cut steel beams I c. Must have been burnt that way lol

...because there's a progressively larger load being handled by the columns, which buckle and fail, causing the collapse to continue and creating an even larger load for the remaining columns?

 

[NoDrama]

See this article, for example: http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html.

There is no article there.

But I will one up you with a tale from NIST:

The structural components that became weakened due to the fires and eventually caused the towers to collapse had their fireproofing dislodged by debris from the aircraft impact. The region of dislodged fireproofing was determined from the predicted path of the debris. Had the fireproofing not been dislodged, the temperature rise of the structural components would likely have been insufficient to cause the global collapse of the towers. Fireproofing dislodged by debris left the components more sensitive to heat than any areas where there was missing or thin fireproofing before the aircraft impacts.

from : http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.cfm

You aren't now deviating from the official stance and going out on your own to develop an unproven hypothesis are you?

 

[NoDrama]

Please tell me, when in history has a 400,000 pound plane smashed into a building, igniting an almost full loads of jet fuel and damaging critical core columns? Never. Don't you think it's reasonable that an unprecedented event never before seen might have an unprecedented result?

But it didn't happen once, it happened 2 times, in one day , in one place. The third building sustained very little actual damage since the walls had no involvement with holding the building up since it was a masonry facade.

 

[echelon1k1]

DOER already made the hypothesis that the aluminum from the Airplane disintegrated itself into aluminum dust, which then mixed with RUST from all that metal somewhere in the building, then some very very high temperature flame ( not from fire cuz it takes temps of 3000F to ignite thermite) ignited it all which is what really happened. That explains it all.

Do you think DOER might be a fool?

I do.

Doer on most occasions confirms it himself...

Right. We are saying if he had the $100 lesson he could see how easy it is to steer a plane around in the sky.

Here are the real simulators and they are so well certified they count for training hours. I was in an F4 simulator with I was 12 years old. My dad was the Simulator Chief Msgt, for the Air Force.

One of only 63, NCOIC commissioned by Congress as a new rank. I grew up with this and have been oriented in the Apache which is a hoot.

Apparently other peoples ratings, bolster your own credentials.

 

[Doer]

...because there's a progressively larger load being handled by the columns, which buckle and fail, causing the collapse to continue and creating an even larger load for the remaining columns?

Dartmouth made an excellent set of videos, digitally enhanced with forensic techniques. I didn't even bring up the impossibility of determining the Tv after it had gathered a few floors.

No way to know what the free fall velocity was to calculate it, in mid-fall. No shape.

But, it fell at free fall or near 'bouts.

That was obvious to any mammal that observed it.

I suggest ya'll boys take a look for those. uh, other videos.

It you have not read everything and seen it all, please join the club and stop lying about it

 

[echelon1k1]

Dartmouth made an excellent set of videos, digitally enhanced with forensic techniques. I didn't even bring up the impossibility of determining the Tv after it had gathered a few floors.

No way to know what the free fall velocity was to calculate it, in mid-fall. No shape.

But, it fell at free fall or near 'bouts.

That was obvious to any mammal that observed it.

I suggest ya'll boys take a look for those. uh, other videos.

It you have not read everything and seen it all, please join the club and stop lying about it

You really need to start taking your own advice. Can you clarify the below please?

Well, there is no second approach in the radar track data. No do over.

So, that's just made up, as well.

 

[NoDrama]

Dartmouth made an excellent set of this videos, digitally enhanced with forensic techniques. I didn't even bring up the impossiblity of detrmining the Tv after it had gathered a few floors.

No way to know what the free fall velocity was to calculate it, in mid-fall. No shape.

But, it fell at free fall or near 'bouts.

That was obvious to any mammal that observed it.

I suggest ya'll boys take a look for those. uh, other videos.

It you have not read everything and seen it all, please join the club and stop lying about it

Umm DOER? I don't think you understand what terminal velocity is. Cuz you are using the term erroneously my friend.
small brain.
Puts in comparative context.
"The collective dream of Humanity."
Fantastic, tragic, bizarre.

 

[tokeprep]

fireballs only travel down elevator shafts 1000 feet down in the movies. The initial impact would have burned up the majority of what fuel was left, and we know it wasn't full. Most of the fuel was used up in the big fireball on impact, maybe 1,000 gallons could survive for more than a minute or 2, it wasn't dumped into a single pool, the plane crashed into the building at 500 MPH, so did the fuel.

Random fuel load would not all be forced just down an elevator shaft, it would be ALL OVER the place. Even if you literally dumped 10,000 gallons of fuel down the elevator shaft, it still wouldn't explode, its JP-5, its not a highly volatile fuel, you can put burning cigarettes out with it.

This isn't scientific at all. This is pure speculation on your part that experts with real credentials in relevant fields contradict. Why should I take your word for it?

Next, I disagree that fuel would be forced all over the place. It should flow wherever it can flow, shouldn't it? If elevator doors are blown off and there's a 1,000 foot space to flow down, shouldn't the fuel end up there? Where else would you expect it to go? Is it just sitting on the floors and slowly seeping down the floors? Why wouldn't it pour into open spaces?

The witness accounts suggest the fireball in the lobby happened just after the plane impacts:

"[FONT=arial,sans-serif]She had been standing outside the north tower next to a man she knew, waiting for a bus, when she heard a loud crash above. In an effort to protect them from falling debris, a security guard herded everyone inside the tower's lobby. Suddenly, she told Ronnie, something bright and hot enveloped her, a vapour maybe. She thought it could have dropped down the elevator shaft. She was worried about the man who'd been next to her. Surely he was dead, she feared."

"[/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif](Vasana) Mutuanot was in the lobby of Tower One when she heard the first explosion. Thinking it was a bomb like the terrorist attack in 1993, she turned to run, looking over her shoulder as flames leaped from a freight elevator shaft cooking her back and legs and right cheek. "It was a fireball with sand and heat, like a hurricane of fire," she said."

Why couldn't the initial fire from the impact travel with the jet fuel down the elevator shafts? [/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[tokeprep]

he also ASSumes, going from a single engine prop, to commercial airliner, is comparable to the transition from driving a car to a truck... I don't know kids these days...

Had they not extensive Boeing simulator training, you might have a point. But you don't ever have to fly a real plane to be able to do it when you're training in an exact replica of the cockpit with a realistic flight simulation.

Why would pilots train in Boeing simulators otherwise, if it wouldn't enable them to fly the plane? Isn't the next step, after the simulator, to actually fly the Boeing? You're suggesting that simulator-trained pilots are then incapable of flying the real plane? This seems incredibly dubious.

 

[echelon1k1]

No mention of Securacom/Stratesec and the services they provided to WTC, Dulles International & United Airlines? More multiple security failures in the weeks leading up to and the day of 9/11? Fool me once. Shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again....

 

[tokeprep]

The big jet hitting the trees? Didn't sound like an explosion to me at all. Sounds like an impact, a crash.


:28 seconds in, that is what an explosion sounds like. Not an impact sound like the plane video.
[video=youtube;Ba8jTkRWiwI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba8jTkRWiwI[/video]

I think a lot of people would describe that sound as an explosion regardless of what it actually was. That's the point. It doesn't matter what you think it sounds like--all that matters is that some people would describe it as an explosion in their accounts of what happened. It could be half, it could be a third, it could be 20%; if you have 10,000 witnesses, you still thousands of people saying it.

 

[NoDrama]

This isn't scientific at all. This is pure speculation on your part that experts with real credentials in relevant fields contradict. Why should I take your word for it?

Next, I disagree that fuel would be forced all over the place. It should flow wherever it can flow, shouldn't it? If elevator doors are blown off and there's a 1,000 foot space to flow down, shouldn't the fuel end up there? Where else would you expect it to go? Is it just sitting on the floors and slowly seeping down the floors? Why wouldn't it pour into open spaces?

The witness accounts suggest the fireball in the lobby happened just after the plane impacts:



Why couldn't the initial fire from the impact travel with the jet fuel down the elevator shafts? [/FONT]

The fuel was dashed against the steel beams and concrete at 500 MPH, do you really think it would just pool up and not ignite until nearly the entire fuel load dripped out into the elevator shaft and fell the 1000 feet to the bottom, where it was "heard" as an explosion and felt as a shake of the very buildings foundation. And this all happened a mere fraction of a second after the impact?

I guess we don't have to allow for the fuel to actually have to travel to get to the lobby, it must have teleported there with Star Trek Technology eh?

Fuel impacts building at 500 mPH, HUGE FiREBALL, none of the fuel burns up, all of it is instantly directed down an elevator shaft where it appears in the lobby as a huge explosion just an instant after the plane hit. Guess all those papers from the desks were what caused the giant fireball on impact and not the fuel, the fuel fell into a funnel and was instantly shot down 1000 feet of elevator shaft where it pressurized itself and blew up.

Not even kind of a likely story.

Implausible? Yes
Impossible?
Yes.

 

[tokeprep]

Yeah, can't trust those shady no-good firefighters. I know that eyewitness testimony can be about as useful as tits on a boar in these high intensity situations. I don't give two shits about the cross. That's religious feeble minded nonsense. Molten or "semi molten" steel shouldn't have been present to begin with, let alone weeks after the fact.

My point about the firefighters is that they could be ignorant, not that they're lying. This is one of the most videotaped and photographed events in human history on the day it happened and in the days and weeks afterward. The best evidence you have that such molten steel was present is witness testimony? Not plausible.

 

[Doer]

Would you give up, Drama?

No matter how many times you say steel building, that will not make it a steel frame building.

The SCAC needs so many tricks of tongue, of camera, of double think.

As far as those airplanes were concerned, that panel column wall, may as well have been paper.

 

[echelon1k1]

My point about the firefighters is that they could be ignorant, not that they're lying. This is one of the most videotaped and photographed events in human history on the day it happened and in the days and weeks afterward. The best evidence you have that such molten steel was present is witness testimony? Not plausible.

Quick search of the web reveals many pictures of molten steel and first responders talking about it, you can also see perfectly cut 45 degree angles on the columns too...