IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
jfetzer reply to Craig regarding NPT, Split from Latest News

jfetzer
post Oct 28 2010, 06:14 PM
Post #1





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Craig,

You don't have a monopoly on truth. Anyone who has actually studied the films in New York, including both the Naudet and the Hazarkhani and Fairbanks videos, knows there are serious problems with them. With regard to Flight 11, see Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudt's 9/11 Film was Staged", http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm . And, with regard to Flight 175, I have laid them out in "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof...080729-132.html . If you can't explain how a 767 could fly at 540 mph at 700-1,000 feet, then you have no standing to oppose those of us, including John Lear, perhaps our nation's most distinguished pilot, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who have concluded that that would be aerodynamically impossible. If you can't explain how a plane can melt into a building without a collision -- which should have crumpled its fuselage, its wings and tail broken off, and bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground, then you have no standing to oppose those of us, including Morgan Reynolds and Steffan Grossman, who has written extensively about it, including, for example, http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/...ion.cgi.45.html . And if you can't explain how a plane could traverse its own length into a massive 500,000 steel and concrete building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, then you have no standing to oppose those who realize -- as you apparently do not -- that would be physically impossible. So unless you are willing to admit that you believe impossible things, be so kind as to lay off those of us with higher standards. And check out some of my interviews on this very subject, including with Scott Forbes, who was astonished by his own observations of what happened on that day. You are not the only serious student of 9/11.

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Dululth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://911scholars.org

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 28 2010, 03:09 PM) *
Truth seekers do not conflate legitimate research and evidence with debunked foolishness.

That is exactly what the attack hounds at 911blogger have done in their pathetic attempt to discredit us and exactly what you are doing by showing up in this thread with your very first post in this forum.

There is a reason why there isn't a NPT at the WTC advocate who has conducted an eyewitness investigation in New York on the level that we have in Arlington and it's not because you are right.

Now please stop your effort to derail this thread that is about a specific article regarding the censorship of CIT and our legitimate findings backed with truly independent evidence.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Oct 28 2010, 09:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 28 2010, 08:29 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Just curious...

How many frames did the plane you refer to (175 or 11?) take to traverse its own length? Did you take into consideration paralax as the camera position could influence the calculations of velocity?

Do you believe that a plane with enormous kinetic energy could or could not penetrate the facade of the twin towers?

Do you believe that a baffled aluminum tank of say 500 gallons traveling at several hundred miles an hour could destroy the facade structure of the twin towers at the floors of the supposed strikes?

Would any of that fuel in addition to bursting the tank penetrate the building?

What is the margin of error in analyzing speed etc in the frame rate of the videos presented of the plane strikes?

Just a note:

The twin towers aside from the flimsy 4" thick floor slabs at 12' oc vertically has essentially nothing between the facade and the core except office landscape furniture for the most part. If NIST is to be believed on this (I am not saying I do) there was damage to the core related to the plane strikes indicating (if you accept this premise) that sufficient mass with sufficient kinetic energy reached up to and then destroyed some core columns completely.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Oct 28 2010, 08:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Oct 28 2010, 09:03 PM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



HI All \
!

The problem that I have with Mr. Fetzter's observation that the planes should not have disappeared into the building is that the designer of the WTC's (I forget his name but we all love him) is that the plane should have penetrated the outer perimeter columns "like a pencil through a screen door screen" but still should not have caused a collapse even assuming the resulting "hot jet fuel fires". He says the the design assumed such a penetration and such fires, but still would not collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Oct 28 2010, 09:23 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



You can make the counts yourself. It's not that difficult, using a single-frame-by-single-frame advance. This is really not difficult to establish, since it can be done with the Fairbanks film, for example, which does not have any parallax problems. A flying beer can, especially an empty one, is not going to be able to penetrate steel. You do understand that, by Newton's third law, the impact of the plane flying at 540 mph on a stationary 500,000 ton building would be the same as the impact of a 500,000 ton building flying at 540 mph impacting a stationary plane? You really haven't thought this through. Are you aware of the damage done when an airplane hits a tiny bird in flight? Stefan Grossman, by the way, is a physicist. Do you believe that a 767 could fly at 540 mph at 700-1,000 feet altitude? Do you believe that a 767 could pass though the steel and concrete -- where it was intersecting with eight floors of steel trusses filled with 4" of concrete on each floor -- which would have provided enormous horizontal resistance. Its velocity should have fallen to zero. Take a look at either my Buenos Aires Powerpoint, "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", 11 September 2009, at http://911scholars.org, my London symposium presentation, "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", 14 July 2010, http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ or, for even more emphasis, my Seattle presentation, "Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", 13 December 2009, which you can find at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html . John Lear and Stefan Grossman believe that, in order to fly faster than a 767, to enter the building in violation of Newton's laws, and to travel its own length into the steel and concrete building in the same number of frames that it passes though its own length in air, it cannot possibly be a real plane. So do I. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. The engines, no doubt, would have penetrated the structure, but most of the plane would not have. They conjecture that it was probably a sophisticated hologram. I have interviewed yet another physicist, Stephen Brown, who had recently taken a course on holography at Cambridge, on "The Real Deal", and he affirmed that a holographic projection like that would have been feasible. A nice point John has made, by the way, is that a real plane would have strobe lights on its wingtips and fuselage, while this image has none. Think about it. Pay special attention to the design and structure of the South Tower. If you can figure out a better explanation for all the data, I'd like to hear it. You can email jfetzer@d.umn.edu.

QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 28 2010, 08:29 PM) *
Just curious...

How many frames did the plane you refer to (175 or 11?) take to traverse its own length? Did you take into consideration paralax as the camera position could influence the calculations of velocity?

Do you believe that a plane with enormous kinetic energy could or could not penetrate the facade of the twin towers?

Do you believe that a baffled aluminum tank of say 500 gallons traveling at several hundred miles an hour could destroy the facade structure of the twin towers at the floors of the supposed strikes?

Would any of that fuel in addition to bursting the tank penetrate the building?

What is the margin of error in analyzing speed etc in the frame rate of the videos presented of the plane strikes?

Just a note:

The twin towers aside from the flimsy 4" thick floor slabs at 12' oc vertically has essentially nothing between the facade and the core except office landscape furniture for the most part. If NIST is to be believed on this (I am not saying I do) there was damage to the core related to the plane strikes indicating (if you accept this premise) that sufficient mass with sufficient kinetic energy reached up to and then destroyed some core columns completely.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Oct 28 2010, 09:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Oct 28 2010, 09:30 PM
Post #5





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Here are the first six points out of twenty from "Why Doubt 9/11?" on the upper left-hand corner of the Scholars home page. You are talking about Frank DiMartini, of course, who was speaking of the intricate lattice structure of the buildings as wholes, not denying the local damage that would occur from a plane hitting the structures, especially intersecting with eight floors of steel trusses connected to the forty-seven core columns at one end and the steel support columns at the other and filled with 4" of concrete. Take a look at the first fifteen frames of my Buenos Aires Powerpoint or the first ten minutes of either of the other presentations. No real plane could have made such an effortless entry. A car is not going to pass through an enormous tree just because it is being driven faster and faster, nor is an empty beer can going to pass through a steel plated building. Also consider:

The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from building up on the steel.

The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233 had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither long enough or hot enough—at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North—to weaken, much less melt.

If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any “collapse” sequence.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and began to fall to the side, when the floors beneath gave way. So it was not even in the position to exert downward pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn, moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Oct 28 2010, 09:03 PM) *
HI All \
!

The problem that I have with Mr. Fetzter's observation that the planes should not have disappeared into the building is that the designer of the WTC's (I forget his name but we all love him) is that the plane should have penetrated the outer perimeter columns "like a pencil through a screen door screen" but still should not have caused a collapse even assuming the resulting "hot jet fuel fires". He says the the design assumed such a penetration and such fires, but still would not collapse.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elreb
post Oct 28 2010, 09:56 PM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,589
Joined: 31-December 07
From: Maui
Member No.: 2,617



Beer cans and straw…interesting at best…

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin4.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Oct 29 2010, 08:31 PM
Post #7





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



I am going to make a wild guess and conjecture that you are implying that pieces of straw have
been shown to have penetrated trees during tornados! The problem, of course, is that it doesn't
happen. Trees are often twisted violently by the force of the wind and open cracks in their bark,
which has been known to capture pieces of straw. But the straw did not PENETRATE the trees.

QUOTE (elreb @ Oct 28 2010, 09:56 PM) *
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 29 2010, 09:03 PM
Post #8





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Jim,

First of all a plane (assuming that there was one) did not encounter the entire 500,000 ton mass. The profile of the plane... nose first assuming it was moving at several hundred mph encountered a single steel box column which at the elevation we are discussing was not more than 5/16" steel plate.

Aluminum would crumple before the steel... or more than the steel since it is thinner and more elastic. However the plane was not simply thin aluminum skin.

The plane contained perhaps 10,000 pounds of fuel... the exact amount is immaterial. That fuel weighs in the order of 62 pounds per cubic foot.

So lets take 160 cubic feet... say 2' x 10' x 8' ... it weight 10,000 pounds and it is traveling at 300-400 mph and slam it into 1/4" steel plate. Are you telling me that it would not destroy the steel plate?

I have seen with my own two lying eyes boats at sea hit by rather slow moving large waves of water crash upon deck rip steel pipe railings apart, dent in steel bulkheads and cause all sorts of damage. Comparable kinetic energy?

You are I believe mistaken that a fast moving jet does not contain enormous concentrated kinetic energy... enough to penetrate the the facade of the twin towers above floor 78.

So what would happen to the edge of a 4" thick lightweight concrete slab? Do the math... apply a force of 250,000 pounds moving at 300-400 mph as a concentrated load along a few feet of the edge of the slab and tell me it wouldn't be crushed? Let's see 4" x 6' = 2 SF. Concrete might crush at 4000PSI. Can the energy of this 250,000 pound jet exceed the 4000 PSI limit? You tell me.

How do wreaking ball crush concrete?

Perhaps the center of effort of the plane did not impact the floors but when in between them? Eventually this mass will encounter something which will be destroyed or deformed elastically.

This is not rock paper scissors... is it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 29 2010, 09:20 PM
Post #9





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Rubbish....

Each floor of the WTC tenant space was designed to carry 100 #/SF with either 1/360 span of deflection or more likely 1/720 span.

If you exceed this it will deflect more. It deforms elastically... like a wood beam or a rubber band as force is increased.

When it reaches its elastic limit it fails.

The floors had a safety factor so they could carry perhaps 4 or more times the 100 #/SF load before their ultimate yield strength would be reached. And when it was the floor system would fail... the concrete may break, the truss seat welds may part, the truss angle flanges could shear, the truss chords might snap, the truss webs might part and so forth... weakest link fails first... just like a chain.

In the case of the twin towers the top sections were destroyed and broke apart. How that was done is another discussion, but it WAS done. And what happened is that the mass of the floors and ON the floors was not "disappeared" ... those 17 floors of mass for the most part obeyed the force of gravity and came DOWN. Each square foot of floor weighed perhaps 200# or less... 94# of concrete, some steel and then furniture etc.

So each dropping floor now lands on the undamaged floor adding about say... 150# per foot... with 25% going over the side and turned to material carried in the air.

17 x 150 = 2500 pounds landing on each square foot of the 92nd floor. And that floor was designed to support 100# or lets say 600 pounds with a safety factor.

By the time 5 or six floors had collapsed on to the 92nd floor it was already breaking apart and depositing almost 1000 pounds per square foot on the 91st floor and so on.

No columns were crushed... the towers floors failed from being over loaded and progressively collapse right to the ground. Not as pancakes... simply as random chaotic destruction caused by the vertical avalanche of debris of the floor material and contents from above. And this includes some very heavy concrete pads supporting HVAC equipment, not to mention the mechanical and radio equipment on floors 108 and 109.

Try placing 2500 - 5000 pounds on square foot of a floor designed to support 100. See what happens.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Oct 29 2010, 09:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 29 2010, 09:23 PM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Jim,

I invite you to:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

to both read their work and present your own ideas about structure.

I think you will enjoy the experience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Oct 30 2010, 10:34 AM
Post #11





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



All,

Here's the argument distilled into four
simple points, with a video illustration.
There are at least four problems with the
videos of the plane hitting the South Tower:

(1) it is flying faster than aerodynamically
possible for a Boeing 767, as John Lear, our
nation's most distinguished pilot, and Pilots
for 9/11 Truth have concluded (at 540 mph);

(2) it passes through the building without
any crumpling, the wings and the tail don't
break off, bodies, seats, and luggage don't
fall to the ground, it doesn't even slow down;

(3) the number of frames it takes to pass its
own length into the building is the same as the
number of frames it takes to pass through its
own length in air, which is obviously impossible;

(4) commercial carriers have strobe lights on
their wingtips and on their fuselage above and
below, but the plane shown in these videos does
not, which means that something is very wrong.

Here's a video where you can confirm points (2)
and (4). Think about the damage done to a plane
when it hits a tiny bird in flight. Yet this plane is
shown passing through a 500,000-ton building?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PORptq9a3k

I can't wait to hear those who maintain that the
videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower are
real. The image of a plane may have hit the ST,
but it cannot have been a real Boeing 767. Q.E.D.

Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Oct 30 2010, 10:49 AM
Post #12





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



SanderO,

The buildings were constructed with a minimum safety margin of 20, which
means each floor could carry at least twenty times its expected live load. I
would have supposed you would know John Skilling's observation about this.
Visit http://911scholars.ning.com and take a look at Chuck Boldwyn's work.

The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to
weaken, much less melt. UL certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four
hours without weakening, where a massive fire in the North Tower in 1975
provided a unintentional verification that their certification was "right on"!

NITS studied 236 samples of steel from the towers and determined that 233
had not been exposed to temperatures greater than 500*F and the other 3
not above 1200*F. Which means that the government's official account is
contradicted by the government's own evidence, which you want to defend.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower tilted over and were not even exerting
any downward force when the building began to explode. If you take the
top 16 floors of the North Tower as 1 unit of downward force, there were at
least 199 units of upward force to counteract it. There was no "collapse"!

Since below the 80th floor on the South Tower and the 94th of the North,
the buildings were nothing but stone cold steel, there was no reason for
any "collapse". And in fact the buildings were converted into millions of
cubic yards of very fine dust. For example, "New 9/11 Photos Released",

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/ne...s-released.html

As a test of your intellectual integrity, by the way, do you agree that the
four points I have made about video fakery/no planes in the South Tower
videos are impeccable? If you take exception to them after having spent
some time studying them, please let me know which you reject and why.

Jim


QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 29 2010, 09:23 PM) *
Jim,

I invite you to:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

to both read their work and present your own ideas about structure.

I think you will enjoy the experience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 30 2010, 11:17 AM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The safety factor was not 20 times

Do the structural calculations for the components.

What is the yield limit of a 4" thick lightweight concrete slab supported 80" OC spanning 59'-6".

Let's start here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Oct 30 2010, 11:19 AM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



jim,

i am going to assume you are the real jim fetzer, if you're not....

going with that assumption, i commend you on your work at assassinationresearch.com and your work about 9/11. where can i read about Judyth Vary Baker?


from the link you posted: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-16-03/...ion.cgi.45.html, a fellow named Wierzbicki was cited. more on him below. the following url in the preceding link was 404:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm, so i couldn't read about the holographic technology. i would concede quite readily that it probably does exist, along with various other technologies. the fellow who wrote a while ago, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." knew what he was talking about. having said that, evidence is what we are all looking for. the quintessential picture, in my estimation, provides some:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/...wtc1_woman.html

what it shows me is damage to 3 or 4 floors and beams bent inward, as in explosive from outside the building or implosive from within the structure. i am unfamiliar with materials or techniques which could cause implosive behaviour. i still believe in looking for the simplest explanation.

in the case of aa11, the speed was thought to be between 192m/s - 210m/s. using the lower figure gives a speed of only 429mph. i think that may be within the operating envelope of the 767. if it isn't, is it beyond the realm of possibility to modify that type of aircraft to perform in that manner? if money were no object?

as far as aluminum aircraft damaging steel structures, copper jacketed bullets (brinell hardness = 100), will most certainly penetrate a36 structural steel plate (brinell hardness = 119-159 depending on heat treatment etc). i believe most of the 767 airframe structure is made of 2024-t6 aluminum (brinell hardness = 125). it all boils down to kinetic energy, and that brings me back to Wierzbicki whose work was expanded upon and modified by Karim & Hoo Fatt at The University Of Akron Ohio in a paper entitled, 'Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center' published in january 2005.
the abstract reads as follows:

"A numerical simulation of the aircraft impact into the exterior columns of the World
Trade Center (WTC) was done using LS-DYNA. For simplification, the fuselage was
modeled as a thin-walled cylinder, the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel
pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the
WTC were represented as box beams. Actual masses, material properties and dimensions
of the Boeing 767 aircraft and the exterior columns of the WTC were used in this
analysis. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used
to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the
exterior columns would be 130 m/s. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top
speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than
20 mm."

i added the quotes and LS-DYNA is a finite element analysis tool. they used max speed and weight values to determine the 46% value, which in the case of aa11 is off by a lot. they didn't include the floors in their calculations or the energy required to shred the plane in the process. those figures were estimated by Wierzbicki and when coupled with the results of the above analysis, show no residual energy available to damage the core (in my estimation).

so where does all this leave us?

if nanothermite was used, then it was a state sponsored act. i can't make the stuff at home.

if the north approach to the pentagon is true, then the official account is false. somebody is lying. why?

i could go on, but you know all this stuff. my personal favorite alternative is micro-nuke. it fits a lot of the evidence, if i could know for sure why an emp was not observed. maybe the black budget has ballooned so much from the afghan heroin trade, that they managed to do that as well. hopefully CERN has another malfunction and doesn't end up making strangelets to swallow all of us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Oct 30 2010, 11:39 AM
Post #15





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Oct 28 2010, 01:34 PM) *
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PORptq9a3k"]http://www.youtube.com


well that just looks totally fake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Oct 30 2010, 11:47 AM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 28 2010, 12:20 AM) *
Try placing 2500 - 5000 pounds on square foot of a floor designed to support 100. See what happens.


i park my 4000 pound car in my garage with a 4" thick concrete slab. i would guess the bearing surface of the 4 tires is pretty close....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Oct 30 2010, 02:15 PM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Oct 31 2010, 02:19 AM) *
SanderO,

The buildings were constructed with a minimum safety margin of 20, which
means each floor could carry at least twenty times its expected live load. I
would have supposed you would know John Skilling's observation about this.
Visit http://911scholars.ning.com and take a look at Chuck Boldwyn's work.

The fires burned neither long enough nor hot enough to cause the steel to
weaken, much less melt. UL certified the steel to 2,000*F for three or four
hours without weakening, where a massive fire in the North Tower in 1975
provided a unintentional verification that their certification was "right on"!

NITS studied 236 samples of steel from the towers and determined that 233
had not been exposed to temperatures greater than 500*F and the other 3
not above 1200*F. Which means that the government's official account is
contradicted by the government's own evidence, which you want to defend.

The top 30 floors of the South Tower tilted over and were not even exerting
any downward force when the building began to explode. If you take the
top 16 floors of the North Tower as 1 unit of downward force, there were at
least 199 units of upward force to counteract it. There was no "collapse"!

Since below the 80th floor on the South Tower and the 94th of the North,
the buildings were nothing but stone cold steel, there was no reason for
any "collapse". And in fact the buildings were converted into millions of
cubic yards of very fine dust. For example, "New 9/11 Photos Released",

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/ne...s-released.html

As a test of your intellectual integrity, by the way, do you agree that the
four points I have made about video fakery/no planes in the South Tower
videos are impeccable? If you take exception to them after having spent
some time studying them, please let me know which you reject and why.

Jim


Why cant we just forget about the NPT it has already been de bunked 10 million times already, it does to serve the truth movement
no good it only destroys our credibilty.

This post has been edited by Paul: Oct 30 2010, 02:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Oct 30 2010, 11:47 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



GroundPounder,

Thanks for taking a look. The video is very revealing. I find it difficult to imagine
how someone later in this thread could suggest that NPT has been refuted, over
and over again, if they have taken a look at this. No real plane could do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PORptq9a3k

About Judyth, I had a thread on The Education Forum, "Judyth Vary Baker: Living
in Exile", that ran for months with around 3,000 posts. I believe it was the longest
in the history of the forum. She has a new book out now, ME & LEE, amazon.com.

You can find fifteen YouTube interviews I have done with her at JamesFetzerNews.
I have several blogs about her at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. Most relevant,
I just interviewed Ed Haslam, her editor, archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

About NPT, the simplest explanation is preferable ONLY IF it can account for all the
available evidence. How do you account for the impossible speed of Flight 175?
its impossible entry? and passing through the building like passing through air?

Leslie Raphael has discussed Flight 11. I discuss evidence related to all four of
the alleged "crash sites" in "Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?", http://911scholars.org,
including a diagram showing the eight floors of the ST that Flight 175 intersected.

Your analogy with a bullet is faulty. A bullet is a solid, dense object. A Boeing
767 is an aluminum can filled with air, which should have crumpled, with wings
and tail breaking off, bodies, seats, and luggage falling. None of that happened.

I also discuss all four "crash sites" in "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified
by 9/11?", http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ and my Seattle presentation of
13 December 2009 at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/httpdotsub.html

If you want to take a look at some of this, I would be glad to discuss it further
with you. You might like my public issues site, http://assassinationscience.com
and I encourage you to join the Scholars forum at http://911scholars.ning.com.

Jim

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Oct 30 2010, 11:39 AM) *
well that just looks totally fake.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Oct 30 2010, 11:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Oct 31 2010, 07:16 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



thanks for links jim, i will most certainly take a look!


QUOTE (jfetzer @ Oct 29 2010, 02:47 AM) *
Your analogy with a bullet is faulty. A bullet is a solid, dense object. A Boeing
767 is an aluminum can filled with air, which should have crumpled, with wings
and tail breaking off, bodies, seats, and luggage falling. None of that happened.


well yeah smile.gif

the point i was trying to make was that softer materials can deform harder ones. the 767 may be an aluminum can, but it is a big and heavy one.

yes, the aircraft should most definitely have started to shred beginning at the moment of impact. isn't there video anywhere of a street level view just below the impact hole?

on the subject of frames, do you mean like 30 frames per second being what movie cameras used to shoot? or 24 frames per second movie theater movies? i ask because hoo fatt's analysis showed the aircraft ( whatever would have been left ) decelerating by half from it's initial velocity. the plane's ~48 meter length would have traversed that distance in .25 to .5 seconds, which could be up to 15 frames...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 31 2010, 09:46 AM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,164
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Mr. Fetzer

I think in your analysis of what an aluminum tube with steel components would ACTUALLY do when striking a building such as the towers, you're overlooking the obvious.

The building itself had windows about 2 feet wide, with about 2 foot spacing. Imagine a steel grate with those approximate dimensions. In any given horizontal section, about half is not steel, but glass.

My theory is that the exoskeleton of the towers were a type of sieve. The 350 knot aluminum tube had heavy steel nose wheel landing gear leading the penetration, followed shortly thereafter by 2 larger main gear assemblies made of steel, and 2 larger diameter engines with steel and other hard metal components.

Why would such a structure as the towers NOT be penetrated? Why would the aluminum components with such a velocity NOT be shredded by the seive? What laws of physics demand that the fuselage would flatten and fall to the ground below?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th December 2017 - 04:29 PM