Utter bollocks, really? So about Hani, why did he take his time in attacking the Pentagon, why not just fly straight into the building? I'm sure you watched the flight data recorder analysis? Well I doubt you did because then you might understand that what actually happened was very illogical, from a terrorist point of view. If indeed he wanted to attack the Pentagon, why fly around it? The planes that hit the towers didn't need to so why do this in thee most restricted, heavily defended airspace in America? Why risk getting the plane shot down and all your years of planning going out the window because you wanted to take the scenic route to your final destination? Now that's bollocks, come on...
Hang on... There are metallurgical and structural engineers who are saying that the buildings physically couldn't fall the way they did without some other forces acting upon them. Why are you saying you need this or that type of engineer or physicist? There was nothing in the planes or the towers that could make metal melt, nothing that could produce molten spheres of iron, nothing that could burn hot enough to make red hot molten metal pour from the building. What more do you want these experts to say?
The plane that hit the Pentagon did 2 loops around it. A military plane also apparantly seen it before it hit the Pentagon. It was only 3 miles away at the time (I find that hard to see but maybe it's different for pilots in the sky).
Well, I can easily think of one reason to circle the Pentagon before crashing into it. A commercial plane traveling at full throttle, low to the ground, directly at the Pentagon is a little suspicious as well, no? Those loops may very well have been necessary to get the plane to a low enough altitude to hit the building in the desired manner without clearly showing the pilot's intentions. In fact, the planes manouvers actually threw off local air traffic controllers because it manouvered like a fighter jet, not a commercial plane. While this does attract attention, it also confused radar monitors on the ground. Honestly, this could easily just be clever work by the terrorists. After all, they had been planning the attack for some time.
A question I've had on my mind to all the conspiracy theorists:
If Al-Queda is not responsible for 9/11, then who do you believe is and why did they do it?
A commercial plane, or any plane for that matter, circling over Washington near to the Pentagon, and the Whitehouse for that matter, would cause extreme concern. You need to watch the data recorder analysis before making any more assumptions. The plane came in at roughly the same heading it actually hit the Pentagon at, so all it had to do was dive straight into the building but no, it flew around and descended extremely slowly before impact, not the characteristics of a terrorist with a death wish. And it only did one loop btw.
Perhaps you misunderstood, I'm not arguing about the way the buildings eventually fell, structural engineers certainly know better than me and if they say it's weird, I believe them. What I'm questioning is their capability to clearly dismiss the possibility that the burning plane could have caused the steel to melt. This has nothing to do with metallurgy, this is organic and physical chemistry. That's why I don't buy their final conclusions about something else that must have taken place there, they can't know that as that's completely out of their area of expertize.
The descent actually made no sense. The altitude reporting was apparantly 669ft ASL (above sea level) before it finally dove down over the bridge, hitting light poles, and finally hitting the pentagon.
Of course the eye witnesses to the crash did not see the plane coming from that angle, but from another...
Oh I'm sorry, maybe I should clarify. I'm a civil engineer from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Very soon I will have every bit of the school time as these people, in a relevant field
It is my expert opinion that they are crackpots. got it?
The structure didn't begin an asymetrical collapse ffs. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. The collapse was a symmetrical one, the damage from the plane did not cause the collapse directly, the supports softened and buckled.
And the heat can't dissapate immediately you dolt, it doesn't work like that. It was trapped. Eventually it will yes, but there was also an intense heat source in the building that was creating more heat faster than the rest of the heat could dissipate. to dumb it down somewhat.
Who or what is Al-Qaeda? That is what you should be asking yourself. But to answer your question, which is extremely hard to answer. Obviously it was done by people who have no consideration for the lower gene pool, as they call us. These people who have a globalisation agenda, people who want to get into the middle east(...justification for military intervention into *insert middle-eastern country here*... which is similar to what the US military wanted in 1962, which was justifictaion for military intervention into Cuba(see Operation Northwoods)), people who are setting up the middle east to attack Iran from all sides, people who want WW3. There are many reasons I can think of but these are all my opinions based on what I have seen happening over the years since 9/11, but I could never actually tell you exactly who done it and why, all I do know is what we are being told is not the truth...
I didn't misunderstand, I know you are not sure of the chemical makeup of the materials in the planes and in the buildings and there effects, while burning, on the structural integrity of the buildings. I know what you are asking. But what you don't understand is that a metallurgical engineer must know the effects of different types of materials while burning, on different types of metal and to figure out what way to build metal structures and the melting point of different types of metals.
You don't seem to me to know what you are on about though, you don't describe the situation in the towers the way other engineers have, be them civil, metallurgical or structural. And you certainly don't come across as, to me anyway, as someone with an education which you say you have, but I'll have to take your word for it, wont I. And to resort to name calling, wtf, this is what people who have no argument resort to. It shows a very low intelligence level to start calling people names, why not prove your point with valid information?
Again, you don't know what you are talking about, which again brings into question your qualifications. If, as you say, it was a symmetrical collapse, describe how, from a random amount of damaged exterior and core columns, the two towers and building 7 could end up having a symmetrical collapse? And of course I know you'll take into consideration the time and amount of weight each connection has to take before it will fail. Also, each connection will have to fail simultaneously for a symmetrical collapse. Which, imo, would be impossible in a collapse due to fire.
Name calling again, yeah, keep it coming. Heat cannot be trapped in a steel framed office building, please, even a furnace looses heat through dissipation. You're trying to tell me a 110 storey highrise with fires on approx. 10 of those floors will not dissapate heat in an hours time? And you're calling other highly qualified individuals crackpots? The heat would have dissipated very quickly into the floors above and below the fires.
You don't KNOW anything. you think we aren't being told the truth.
A few engineers do not speak for us all. I would be quite surprised if they are anything near half the population of 'experts'.
I am an engineer, not a writer. Not my strength, but I do know what I'm talking about.
Building 7 was not a symmetrical collapse, but we weren't talking about that. It leaned to the side for hours before it collapsed. It was known that it would collapse long before it did. The lower sections of the two towers were symmetrical collapses, (weight falling on them) while the upper sections weren't, as the pieces that collapsed and bulged underneath them were asymmetrical (due to fire)
Of course a furnace loses some heat through dissipation. But stick your head in the thing and tell me it's not hot in there. That is literally the exact same idea. Fire inside a container. Jet fuel burns well past the temperature that is needed to weaken steel. The heat was transferred to the steel, and it broke it. And yes I'm trying to tell you that a 110 story highrise with fires on ten of those floors will not dissipate heat in an hours time. A small furnace for pottery can take hours and hours to cool, why doesn't the heat dissipate immediately into the floor?
Yes, I am calling them crackpots. This doesn't mean they don't have the qualifications, it just means they are crazy.
I think I know more than you on this subject, and you the one who's almost graduated as a civil engineer? eh?
Well, judging by the rest of what you said you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.... I will explain. And I never said anyone was speaking for anyone else and I'm sure they, as fully qualified engineers, would never dream of speaking for all engineers. And it's not your writing style, it's the language you use that makes me think you are not what you say you are...
So building 7 leaned for hours, then collapses straight into it's own footprint but it wasn't symmetrical? Seriously? If a building sags and leans for hours due to fire then it will fall over! Not collapse into it's own footprint. Here's another engineer, civil and structural in fact, speaking about building 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8
Now lets just get a previous quote here -
Then you say -
It is physically impossible for an asymmetrical collapse to change to a symmetrical collapse without an outside force acting upon it. Conservation of momentum. Simple. I thought any type of engineer would know that... even I understand that and I'm no engineer.
Steel doesn't break when heat is applied, what type of terms are you learning in this college? As one of the engineers said, steel in buildings is designed to go through a few stages before it will actually fail, elastic and plastic are two stages iirc. They are designed to sag and the connections are designed to withstand the sagging of the beams. This is for any steel frame building, not just the WTC buildings. Also, the jet fuel burned up after the first 15mins according to the official story, so how could it possibly have enough time to weaken the steel? Check out the Cardington fire tests, this is what happens to non-fireproofed steel subjected to hours of high temperature fire.
And of course the heat wont dissipate immediately from the furnace through the floor, but it would pass through any steel/metal structure physically attached to the furnace quicker than through the floor, and also because heat wants to rise in the absence of a good conductor.
But I don't understand why you need to personally attack them by calling them names? I wouldn't do that here so why do you choose to? Why not use your education and knowledge on the subject to disprove what they say? I'll tell you why you don't, because you haven't got the knowledge to. I would love to see you debate one of these "crackpots" on this.
Perhaps an open enquiry could be held to answer these and the many other questions that the official 911 story raised, yeh right, you 'had one', and what conclusion did it come to ?
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission. http://spktruth2power.wordpres ... based-on-government-lies/
Amazing, that result from an enquiry and it's NFA'd.
Nothing to cover up here though .........................
if there was a good way to prove it to you, I would. But I'm at home in Michigan this semester, makes it pretty hard to take a picture with the civil engineering building and a written card that says 'RiseAgainstMe!.' Could give you a pic in my GT gear... but lots of people could have GT gear and not go to school there, so that doesn't really prove anything.
Just because it was leaning doesn't mean it toppled. It did fall slightly out of its footprint, to the south. The first side to fall was the South, and then the North. You seem to be operating under the impression that the building fell in one piece, when it fell in sections, collapsing, not toppling. This is shown in the photos of the wreckage, as the north wall lays on top of the rest of the wreckage, as well as the videos. you can watch the East and West suites fall first, followed a few second later by the rest of the building. It looking like it is falling straight down is a trick of the most widely used camera angle.
looking at this image, wt7 doesn't seem to be falling so nice and symmetrical. There is a kink in the middle where the structure has sagged and was the first place to buckle. It is not falling straight down, but rather the top section is falling sideways through the rest of the building. The rest of the building had no choice but to follow.
An asymmetrical collapse did not change into a symmetrical one mid-fall. A slightly asymmetrical collapse caused a symmetrical one underneath it.
To solve this problem you have to think of the tower as two seperate objects once that random point in the middle that is holding everything else up buckles. The top object falls randomly, probably slightly sideways. It is no longer attached to the bottom object, but it is still in contact with it, as gravity is accelerating the object downwards. this extra force on the lower sections is enough to buckle the supports on the lower floors, causing the symmetrical collapse of the lower section in a chain reaction.
The steel broke after intense heat softened it and enormous amounts of weight it wasn't designed to hold were supported on it. Sorry I left a little bit out because I had already explained it, and I have been using very basic terms, because I know that a lot of the people I am talking to on forums and stuff are not engineers. If I start rambling on about Fstatic, no one will understand me or pay attention. Structural steel loses strength very quickly at a certain temperature, but it melts at a much higher temperature. this is because it is not an element, so it doesn't have a single melting point like say water does. It's an alloy, meaning there are several elements mixed up in there (different concentrations and treatments are used for different applications) - each with its own individual melting point. This causes the steel to have different phases as it heats up, and there is a rapid drop off in the strength of structural steel at a much lower temperature than the actual melting point. look up the yield curves on various types of steel if you don't believe me, they drop off very quickly.
The jet fuel burned up, yes, but by that time it had already set a lot of other things on fire - carpet, desks, walls, floors, ceilings.
metal is an extremely good conductor. this is why metal usually feels cold to the touch, that is the transfer of heat energy from your skin to the metal. That is it absorbs heat. Air is a bad conductor. The heat would have been absorbed by the metal easily, and stayed there for a long time. Air is a bad conductor.
I call them like I see them. I'm not going to say I respect them when I don't . Not everyone associated with this movement gets the crackpot label, it has to do with the thought process they lay out before me. If a person has achieved my label of crackpottidom, I believe them incapable of listening to my side of a debate, and thus unworthy of a debate. Hence why you got this entire response, and Racer X I don't pay attention to, should he ever choose to come back around here. Not all these talking videos I've seen have achieved that status - that last guy, Obeid or whatever I didn't think was too bad. I still disagree with his final conclusion though.
You could do it a thousand times in a sim, that doesn't guarantee that you will nail it the FIRST time you try it with god-knows-how many tons real airplane, with dead pilots beside you and knowing that you will die in a couple of minutes.. And ok, they alegedly practiced with smaller planes, still, that's one hell of a task and they did it perfectly in 3 cases.
Mate you are talkin nonsense, serioulsy. "A slightly asymmetrical collapse caused a symmetrical one underneath it..." What utter BS, I seriously cannot believe a civil engineer student is actually saying that.
More BS coming up... "There is a kink in the middle where the structure has sagged and was the first place to buckle..." It sagged? Wtf man... come on, you seem to have no sense of mechanical structures and your going to be a civil engineer? It was instantaneous that kink, then within milliseconds the rest of the building followed, not "a few second later it was followed by the building". The whole building was on the ground in a few seconds...
So, after reading all that I'm going to call it a day with you, really, I cannot go on. And as for the crackpot label, well, lets just say I'm starting to think you are the crackpot. Some of the things you have come out with are ludicrous, seriously. And it makes it even worse when you claim to be a civil engineer student, you should know better, or actually you should have been taught better, if indeed you are what you say you are.
Boris, you know what you are on about, don't even entertain these lads, they're just trying to stir the shit. Shotglass knows full well that the first time he played that game, there was no chance he could have done what he said. You are right, the pressure they would have been under(just hijacked a jet, killed pilots, knowing they're going to die) and the g-forces they would have felt in the plane(not major forces but I would compare it to sitting here playing LFS then actually going to the same track for real and trying to go as fast as I did in the game, it would be near impossible because of the g-forces affecting my control of the vehicle), there's no way they could have hit their target having never sat in the cockpit before then, no chance in hell.
I used to similar stuff in flight sims too. Aiming a plane is not hard, regardless of whether it's a Cessna 172 or an Airbus A380. Much like hitting a drain cover in a car is easy whether you're in a Ford Model T or a Bugatti Veyron, regardless of speed.
I don't know why people think flying a plane is difficult. It just isn't. The hard bit is navigation, radio comms, air law, engineering checks (though hardly taxing).
All the terrorists had to do, once they got control of the plane, is not miss a bloody great building. Any one of us could do it.
and for the record they did not
first hit on the towers was way high and almost too high to cause a colapse (as evident from the fact that the tower that got hit first came down way later than the second tower which got hit quite a bit after the first) the second hit on the towers was well off centre and the plane was pointing away from the centreline of the building as well
and the pentagon hit hardly did any damage at all