so Capt Wittenberg says that these maneuvers could not have been performed......
if this is the case......
and this was 100% fact.....
wouldnt every single pilot on the planet be informing anyone who would listen that it was 100% impossible for the plane to make the maneuvers that it supposedly made???
You havdn't heard about the extreme maneuvers until now. I'm sure there's a whole lot of people who don't know all the details of that day.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so Capt Wittenberg says that these maneuvers could not have been performed......
if this is the case......
and this was 100% fact.....
wouldnt every single pilot on the planet be informing anyone who would listen that it was 100% impossible for the plane to make the maneuvers that it supposedly made???
no no. he said those maneuvers could not have been performed by an amateur.
not to mention that steel is already either destroyed from the impact or taking on excessive pressure to compensate for the destroyed columns.
does these sound like common sense to anyone else? or am I crazy?
I guess sometimes I can make a case for both
plus the completely inadequate fireproofing foam on the interior columns...and the near complete destruction of the central stairwell...plus the way the building fell...a floor didn't fall and then the next floor...the section above the impact zone collapsed as one "unit", if you will and then when that "unit" fell, the sheer weight of that caused the subsequent collapse...and, looking at the collapses, side by side, you can see how they collapsed differently, but each consistent with the damage sustained.
now, please, note, that i am not saying who let it happen, who did it, or who remotely did it...i am just talking about the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 related to the damage sustained.
plus the completely inadequate fireproofing foam on the interior columns...and the near complete destruction of the central stairwell...plus the way the building fell...a floor didn't fall and then the next floor...the section above the impact zone collapsed as one "unit", if you will and then when that "unit" fell, the sheer weight of that caused the subsequent collapse...and, looking at the collapses, side by side, you can see how they collapsed differently, but each consistent with the damage sustained.
now, please, note, that i am not saying who let it happen, who did it, or who remotely did it...i am just talking about the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 related to the damage sustained.
I like how people try to make the point that "no steel structure has ever collapsed due to a fire" (even though this case was anything but a typical fire). Then they say "it had to have been a controlled demolition". This is funny because no building has collapsed like the WTC towers did due to controlled demolition. The only controlled demolition routine I've ever seen goes something like this:
-You see small crackle pop explosions all over the building
-Then you see large explosions near the base
-Then the building collapses in on itself from the bottom
That is nothing like the way the WTC towers fell. They fell from top to bottom, floor by floor.
Then I get the rebuttal that goes something like this:
"Just because the other controlled demolitions looked different, doesn't mean it still couldn't have been a controlled demolition. They could've just rigged it differently."
Then I say "So then you don't think previous examples of similar events should be brought into the discussion..."
i'm not one of the people that is going to sit here and tell people what happened from the beginning to the end...why not? because i don't know what happened. and, no one here knows what happened. it's all conjecture and opinion which is fueld by a person's leanings.
but, one can look, objectively, at the collapse and reasonably discern for themselves that it was NOT a controlled, internal, purposeful demolition.
i'm not one of the people that is going to sit here and tell people what happened from the beginning to the end...why not? because i don't know what happened. and, no one here knows what happened. it's all conjecture and opinion which is fueld by a person's leanings.
but, one can look, objectively, at the collapse and reasonably discern for themselves that it was NOT a controlled, internal, purposeful demolition.
just messin with ya. you seem to posses a common trait few have on this board. common sense.
just messin with ya. you seem to posses a common trait few have on this board. common sense.
i've always tried to maintain my moderate stance on things because i think that's the best way to view things with an open mind. but, right now, i am being completely biased because i am watching THE BEST HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL PLAYER IN THE WORLD - o.j. mayo - on espnu...and bill walker is playing on fsny
Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g’s, I repeat, one and one half g’s. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma’s neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g’s in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.
There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757’s and 767’s can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
[Google “Raytheon Global Hawk system”]
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16’s and their software knows it.
Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.
The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.
Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I’d bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now.
Our information IS controlled
The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.
It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.
When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone’s five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if’s or buts.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so a few guys say that such a maneuver is impossible by an amateur.
thats your proof? beyond a reasonable doubt your honor?
since this amatuer terrorist couldnt do such a move, it must have been remotely controlled?
probably by some CIA guys sitting in the same building?
CIA special agent Johnson --- " Hey make sure you go on the north end, we are attacking the south end end of the building today"
CIA special agent Jones --- " OK "
well, no, see you asked for what i thought happened, not what i could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. first it was called into question could this even happen, yes, it can...
i have no idea what happened, i just think ppl in our government and other spheres of influence as well as factions of certain foreign government<s> had a hand in it...
for all we know the hijackers could've been set up, thinking their just hijacking a plane...then control is taken over and coincendtaly 2 months earlier authority to intercept hijacked aircraft or aircraft that deviate from their filed flight path or don't respond to calls...from NORAD and the military, plz tell me why it took cheney up until right before the pentagon was hit to do anything about it? it's even in the official report, bush was kept isolated pretty much while cheney, rummy and others were calling the shots...are you saying your government is that inept that it takes over 90 minutes of being 'attacked' to fuckin do something? and what's the purpose of taking away that authority from NORAD and the military? according to Andrew's Air Force Base F-18's are stationed 10 miles from DC, why did it take so long?
and no, that special agent johnson skit is not how i imagined it
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
but steel that is weakened due to excessive heat will collapse ......right??
according to the nist report they say the heat never got over 300degrees
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
great. what does this have to do with 9/11? those towers collapsed because huge jet liners crashed into them.
if el queda decided to use molotov cocktails to attack the trade center, those buildings would still be standing.
and dont reply with...."building 7" ?
yeah, don't bring up what he can't explain!!!
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
El, I work in the aerospace industry, and was not aware that much of your info was in the public domain. The details about the Boeing flight software are accurate. However, I am not convinced that the software cannot be defeated from inside the plane...which leads me back to the "supporting cast".
Those Boeing jets are not hard to get, and that particular software application would be standard fare on commerical offerings of those models. It is conceivable that the pilots were given access to other commerical models of the aircraft, and obtained the knowledge required to defeat that part of the technology. Again, not something that a terror organization could easily do on its own...but certianly not impossible.
Also not out of the realm of possibility that Bin Ladin could have bought one himself. He was an extremely wealthy man before 9-11, and no doubt had companies that could shelter the purchase of a jet or two...wouldn't even register as a questionable business transaction.
i'm not one of the people that is going to sit here and tell people what happened from the beginning to the end...why not? because i don't know what happened. and, no one here knows what happened. it's all conjecture and opinion which is fueld by a person's leanings.
but, one can look, objectively, at the collapse and reasonably discern for themselves that it was NOT a controlled, internal, purposeful demolition.
Just because you say yours is the only reasonable and objective opinion doesn't make it true. Anyone can SAY that.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you expect me to believe that these people conjured up this entire thing...and didn't consider these things?
what about...the passengers on the planes? has that been addressed?
software? we all know that ANY software can be compromised.
if you believe the government of this country to be capable of such things, why do you stay here? if they are capable of this don't you think that they're capable of more grand things, thus, rendering moot any efforts of change?
information - is it enough that people know what happened...or do people need to mobilize? what does it help to inform?
Just because you say yours is the only reasonable and objective opinion doesn't make it true. Anyone can SAY that.
i never said it was the only reasonable conclusion - i merely said it was reasonable. take the chip off your shoulder...you might get something accomplished.
and, yes, the fire was hotter than 300...to believe that it was merely 300 F is ridiculous and illogical. a wood fire gets hotter than 300.
my bad, forgot they use celsius in their report, go to nist's report and go to page 140 to the 2 observations of steel they studied:
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 permiter column panels only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250degrees celsius, which is 482F.......
...NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 <1112F>
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i never said it was the only reasonable conclusion - i merely said it was reasonable. take the chip off your shoulder...you might get something accomplished.
Chip off my shoulder?? This coming from the person saying unintelligent people are only good for fixing your toilet and pressing your shirts... otherwise, you'd support killing them. :rolleyes:
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Chip off my shoulder?? This coming from the person saying unintelligent people are only good for fixing your toilet and pressing your shirts... otherwise, you'd support killing them. :rolleyes:
never studied satire? even though that is not an example of someone who has a chip on their shoulder, but, instead, is an example of an extremely arrogant person.
Comments
You havdn't heard about the extreme maneuvers until now. I'm sure there's a whole lot of people who don't know all the details of that day.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
no no. he said those maneuvers could not have been performed by an amateur.
i am thinking that there had to be thousands of professionals involved in the investigation of what happened to those planes on 9-11.....
and yet only one person says that the planes were incapable of doing what they supposedly did...
if it was entirely impossible for the planes to perform those maneuvers wouldnt it just be common knowledge by now??
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
why is this here?
from my window to yours
its proof that steel framed buildings do not collapse due to fire.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
great. what does this have to do with 9/11? those towers collapsed because huge jet liners crashed into them.
if el queda decided to use molotov cocktails to attack the trade center, those buildings would still be standing.
and dont reply with...."building 7" ?
exactly...key word is "weaken" they will constantly use the word "melt"
not to mention that steel is already either destroyed from the impact or taking on excessive pressure to compensate for the destroyed columns.
does these sound like common sense to anyone else? or am I crazy?
I guess sometimes I can make a case for both
makes absolute sense to me.
i'm sorry but that is the only rational explanation.
there will always be conspiracy theorists trying to debunk the facts, always.
and not just with 9-11.
This is also ridiculous.
comparison is...
1. plane = pencil
2. screen fibers = steel columns
3. rest of screen = rest of building <
true but starting to see why this is ridiculous?
the fibers of the screen are not supporting any weight. ready, sorry that I need to explalin this, but steel columns do.
(1) it's a different building
(2) different construction
(3) fire alone
from my window to yours
plus the completely inadequate fireproofing foam on the interior columns...and the near complete destruction of the central stairwell...plus the way the building fell...a floor didn't fall and then the next floor...the section above the impact zone collapsed as one "unit", if you will and then when that "unit" fell, the sheer weight of that caused the subsequent collapse...and, looking at the collapses, side by side, you can see how they collapsed differently, but each consistent with the damage sustained.
now, please, note, that i am not saying who let it happen, who did it, or who remotely did it...i am just talking about the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 related to the damage sustained.
from my window to yours
exactly
hmmm so you really are one of "them"
-You see small crackle pop explosions all over the building
-Then you see large explosions near the base
-Then the building collapses in on itself from the bottom
That is nothing like the way the WTC towers fell. They fell from top to bottom, floor by floor.
Then I get the rebuttal that goes something like this:
"Just because the other controlled demolitions looked different, doesn't mean it still couldn't have been a controlled demolition. They could've just rigged it differently."
Then I say "So then you don't think previous examples of similar events should be brought into the discussion..."
Then they say "That's right, I don't."
Then I pee myself.
i'm not one of the people that is going to sit here and tell people what happened from the beginning to the end...why not? because i don't know what happened. and, no one here knows what happened. it's all conjecture and opinion which is fueld by a person's leanings.
but, one can look, objectively, at the collapse and reasonably discern for themselves that it was NOT a controlled, internal, purposeful demolition.
from my window to yours
just messin with ya. you seem to posses a common trait few have on this board. common sense.
i've always tried to maintain my moderate stance on things because i think that's the best way to view things with an open mind. but, right now, i am being completely biased because i am watching THE BEST HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL PLAYER IN THE WORLD - o.j. mayo - on espnu...and bill walker is playing on fsny
from my window to yours
http://www.september11news.com/FlightPathsWashPost.gif
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/planes-of-911-exceeded-their-software-limits
Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g’s, I repeat, one and one half g’s. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma’s neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g’s in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.
There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757’s and 767’s can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
[Google “Raytheon Global Hawk system”]
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16’s and their software knows it.
Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.
The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.
Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I’d bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now.
Our information IS controlled
The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.
It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.
When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone’s five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if’s or buts.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
well, no, see you asked for what i thought happened, not what i could prove beyond a reasonable doubt. first it was called into question could this even happen, yes, it can...
i have no idea what happened, i just think ppl in our government and other spheres of influence as well as factions of certain foreign government<s> had a hand in it...
for all we know the hijackers could've been set up, thinking their just hijacking a plane...then control is taken over and coincendtaly 2 months earlier authority to intercept hijacked aircraft or aircraft that deviate from their filed flight path or don't respond to calls...from NORAD and the military, plz tell me why it took cheney up until right before the pentagon was hit to do anything about it? it's even in the official report, bush was kept isolated pretty much while cheney, rummy and others were calling the shots...are you saying your government is that inept that it takes over 90 minutes of being 'attacked' to fuckin do something? and what's the purpose of taking away that authority from NORAD and the military? according to Andrew's Air Force Base F-18's are stationed 10 miles from DC, why did it take so long?
and no, that special agent johnson skit is not how i imagined it
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
according to the nist report they say the heat never got over 300degrees
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
yeah, don't bring up what he can't explain!!!
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Those Boeing jets are not hard to get, and that particular software application would be standard fare on commerical offerings of those models. It is conceivable that the pilots were given access to other commerical models of the aircraft, and obtained the knowledge required to defeat that part of the technology. Again, not something that a terror organization could easily do on its own...but certianly not impossible.
Also not out of the realm of possibility that Bin Ladin could have bought one himself. He was an extremely wealthy man before 9-11, and no doubt had companies that could shelter the purchase of a jet or two...wouldn't even register as a questionable business transaction.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Just because you say yours is the only reasonable and objective opinion doesn't make it true. Anyone can SAY that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
how did the heat never get to 300 degrees???
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
you expect me to believe that these people conjured up this entire thing...and didn't consider these things?
what about...the passengers on the planes? has that been addressed?
software? we all know that ANY software can be compromised.
if you believe the government of this country to be capable of such things, why do you stay here? if they are capable of this don't you think that they're capable of more grand things, thus, rendering moot any efforts of change?
information - is it enough that people know what happened...or do people need to mobilize? what does it help to inform?
from my window to yours
i never said it was the only reasonable conclusion - i merely said it was reasonable. take the chip off your shoulder...you might get something accomplished.
and, yes, the fire was hotter than 300...to believe that it was merely 300 F is ridiculous and illogical. a wood fire gets hotter than 300.
from my window to yours
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
my bad, forgot they use celsius in their report, go to nist's report and go to page 140 to the 2 observations of steel they studied:
Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 permiter column panels only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250degrees celsius, which is 482F.......
...NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 <1112F>
but what temp does steel melt?
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060916064546AAQpn2w
...gasoline burns at a much higher temperature than jet fuel, which is comprised mostly of kerosene.
another site:
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html
Melting Point: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F)
then to
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Chip off my shoulder?? This coming from the person saying unintelligent people are only good for fixing your toilet and pressing your shirts... otherwise, you'd support killing them. :rolleyes:
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
never studied satire? even though that is not an example of someone who has a chip on their shoulder, but, instead, is an example of an extremely arrogant person.
from my window to yours