9/11 Loose change 2nd edition

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1About 1 hour 20 minutes long.As I watched it I found many things wrong with the claims made. But as a whole I found it interesting, and I would like to see some questions answered.1. I totally can understand how the buildings fell, they were designed to fall straight down. Probably the force of the falling tower snapped all the welds, between floors.
note: I am not sure if they were welded or not. It is possible that they were put together with shear bolts, which would have snapped easily.2. The fire in the towers was more than just jet fuel, so the 1488F temp is wrong. I spent 11 years fire proofing hospitals in NYC and I have a good education on what it takes to bring a building down in a fire. As I watched the buildings burn, I was telling my wife on the phone that they would be down in less than 2 hours, and that I did not understand why the NYFD (the ones who teach us this stuff) were sending people into the buildings.3. The hole in the ground from flight 93 was consistant with the hole in the pentagon, and twin towers. A signature left from a high speed impact, not a plane that just took off and was going 150mph.4. Any cameras that would have caught the plane flying into the pentagon, would not show a clear picture, if they could catch the plane at all. Traveling 530mph, and 1 or 2 frames per second from a security cam, do not make for clear video. As a matter of fact a plane traveling at 530mph is doing 777feet per second(7 times the length of the plane), and could easily be missed completely by the camera.5. The force of a 100 ton plane slaming into the towers would have shook the whole building to peices, that is why the lobby was torn apart. The outside columns of the towers were part of the structure.
I wonder just how far the building swayed upon impact, and how much damage was done.These are only a few points I can think that go against the "documentary", but there are many more that I cannot answer, and need answering. Especially things about the gold, and illegal trading. Seems like good motives.Either way, if it is true that the government conspired this, then I think it is time for a revolution.I also like to add, that one of the men on flight 93, was a resident of my area, and many people knew him, and he is missed.Edited by riVeRraT, : fixed feet per secondEdited by riVeRraT, : and the length of the planeEdited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

i saw the first one. it struck me, mostly, as the kind of nuttery that claims we never went to the moon, only with a far more sinister twist to it.the primary thing wrong with conspiracy theories in general is that they assume our government is competant enough to both execute the conspiracy, and then keep it a secret. and if there's anything our government is not, it's competant. probably to try to save all the people they could. it's not SMART, but it is heroic. evidently, not enough to knock them down. as i'm sure you're aware, tall buildings are built to absorb a certain amount of lateral force. they actually sway in the wind a bit, but will stand hurricane force winds (cat 3? i forget the specifics).slamming a plane into the side of one wouldn't push it too much, because as you could see, the plane went into the building. most of the force would be diffused. the only bit of the conspiracy theory that i think is plausible is that flight 93 was shot down. that is, if i recall, the protocol when an aircraft comes into or towards protected airspace without broadcasting call signs. considering a plane had just hit the pentagon, this would have been a wise thing to do as well.i'm not sure how well the official story lines up -- how well cell phones work in airplanes? i know quite a few that don't even work in elevators, but in a plane you have the added problem of distance from the tower. i haven't flown since i got a cell phone (very recently...) and i haven't seen any reliable studies one way or the other (considering that until just last week, using a cell phone in an airplane was against the law).anyone been on a plane recently, and can tell me if they had any bars?Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

I was thinking the same thing. Right. The buildings were designed to withstand impact from a jetliner actually, but not a 2000 degree+ fire burning, after the fireproofing was stripped from the support columns. Had the fireproofing not been stripped, the buildings may stood for another hour or so.It was my understanding that they were in the process of adding a third coat of fireproofing to the columns, to bring the fire rating to 3 hours. The stuff they use is called monokote, and it's very flaky. It doesn't take much to knock it off.I was wondering about the impact, because of the damage done to the lobby. That damage might have been caused by falling elevators, the motors that run them and/or counter weights. There were many elevator banks, and lots of room for stuff to fall long distances. All the additional explosions may have also been columns falling down the shafts, or refrigeration systems exploding.What also made me laugh in the documentary is he mentions the Empire state building, and claims that a B-52 hit it. Well for a guy that is trying to make scientific claims as to the impossibility that the jetliners that we saw with our own eyes couldn't have taken the buildings down, he should know that it was a B-17 that hit the empire state building, not a B-52. He also makes no comparison to the construction differences between the 2. The Empire state building is built like a brick shit house and did not burn that much. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't twice as strong as the twin towers. Also a B-17 traveling in the fog, probably was going around 100mph, and would not do nearly as much damage as a 100ton jetliner going 500mph.
BTW, my great uncle was one of the architects who surveyed the damage to the building. Not that means anything, but I think it's cool. Diffused into the building.I don't know enough to accurately calculate the actual force, but it should be relatively easy to figure it out.I fooled around with it, and got 1,863,314,220.843 foot pounds of force asserted against the building, from a 100 ton plane traveling 530mph. I would like to see someone else’s calculations.22,192,128 pounds of force is from wind loading?
I could not find the info to calculate this correctly.I found this while searching around though:from here:
Wired New York Forumand this:from here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.htmlAlso in the video, he claims that the concrete disappeared. That's because there was no masonry used in the construction of the towers other than the fireproofing which is not structual. That's where most of the dust was from, pulverized monokote. Mine doesn't work at all in the air. Plus I think cell antennas are designed to achieve maximum gain horizontally, not vertically. But given the altitude of the plane that hit the pentagon, just how high were they? Maybe they were low enough, I can't remember if that point was discussed. My cell phone works when on the ground in a plane. So shielding is probably not an issue like you experience in an elevator.

It's interest - I'm told as I haven't seen it - that Flight 92 has an entirely fictional moment* where a German passenger tries to stop the others storming the cockpit as "we can talk this out"?Is such a moment in the film?* in the sense that while much of the film is conjecture there is no evidence to suggest anything like this happened.

This commentary on the Guardian website (with interview quotes) would seem to confirm it. What's worse is that there was only one German passenger on the plane, so they are essentially making a (retrospectively negative) comment about a specific person's actions/character. I'm wondering if we'll be hearing from his family on the matter.

Actually, it wasn't a B-17 either. It was a B-25 - a fairly small aircraft. (Remember the Doolittle raid in Pearl Harbour?)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Boy I feel stupid now, I actually got a bad website with the wrong info. I know the difference too, as RC planes are my hobby. B-25 has 2 engines, and a B-17 has 4.

I read Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo when I was a kid and the 25's have always stuck in my head.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Hi RRThe loose change forum completly disrespects the surviviors. Are they to believe that their loved ones are alive, but will not communicate with them, or are they being held at an unknown site by the g'mnt.

If that's the truth, then who is really disrespecting the survivors? I share in the view that people should give pause before engaging in reckless speculation.

Maybe this guy who produced it is actually a terrorist himself.

What unknown site? Area 52?The secret moonbase?

as you point out, b-17's and jet airliners are very different things, and the structure of the empire state building is completely different. well, i think distance would be a bigger problem than direction. they might have been low, yes. i know the one that hit the pentagon came in from a low angle. but the other one was much further away when it went down. yeah, that much i saw on mythbusters. (though it was a much smaller plane)

---

To start with, just a general point.I thought this 'documentary' was very well put together, but people need to learn to stop treating things like this as fact. Use it as a springboard to increase your own understanding of things. Asking questions is never a bad thing, but treating a single source of input such as this video as factual is. I watched documentary on the construction of the building a couple of years ago, but my recollection could be a little foggy.My understanding is that there were only two 'rigid' parts of the towers - the central core and the exterior walls. The actual floors of each story were suspended from these two structures using massive L brackets that were bolted in place.The argument went that the heat of the fire caused two things to occur. Firstly, it caused the actual floors to expand due to the heat. This caused them to bow as the were sandwiched between to the two rigid structures.Secondly, the heat although not hot enough to melt the steel was sufficient enough to slightly soften the L brackets. This softening combined with the bowing caused the entire floor to drop pretty close to instantly once the failure point was reached.As soon as the falling floor hit the floor beneath it the impact stress caused the immediate failure of the L brackets of that floor. This process continuted at near to freefall speed until they completely fell. This is an area that I have very little knowledge of. I would love to hear from you how the temperature could have exceeded the temperature of burning jet fuel. I've read other accounts that go into how there was actually very little fuel that made it into the buildings and how the black smoke is indicative of an oxygen starved fire which implies a lower burning temperature. Could you please provide some expertise on this point? I have a really hard time believing this. I don't understand how with all of the security cameras, highway cameras, gas station cameras, etc, etc, that are in the DC area that SOMETHING wouldn't have picked up a very large plane inbound. The two clips they have released are really quite pathetic and don't show anything. I know I'm arguing from indredulity which is NOT a good thing but I just can't fathom how something wouldn't have caught the plane in flight.To sum up, I think the biggest failing of the US goverment on this tragedy is their lack of up front communication with the populous. There were so many mis-cues and faulty reports issued that it is very easy for someone to assume they are trying to hide something where in all likelyhood it was probably their own incompetance caused by the stress and bedlam of the day.I hope that someday the 'truth' of the matter can be determined and the full suite of information that was gathered by the authorities is released to the public so we can truly decide for ourselves what happened.Edited by Codegate, : No reason given.

but one of the cameras DID catch a plane, in the air, seconds before impact. it's just blurry, from it being in motion.also, you really don't begin to understand just how bad the average security camera is until you've had to use one.

---