Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: jfetzer reply to Craig regarding NPT
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Research > Alternative Theories
Pages: 1, 2
jfetzer
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.
SanderO
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.
tnemelckram
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.
jfetzer
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.
jfetzer
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.
elreb
Beer cans and straw…interesting at best…

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

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/erin4.html
jfetzer
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) *
SanderO
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?
SanderO
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.
SanderO
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.
jfetzer
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
jfetzer
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.
SanderO
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.
GroundPounder
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.
GroundPounder
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.
GroundPounder
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....
Paul
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.
jfetzer
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.
GroundPounder
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...
amazed!
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?
jfetzer
No, the point I was making is that there is NO decleration. Think of driving a car into a massive tree at high spoeed. It's velocity should have fallen to zero except for the engines and other parts that would have entered through the windows. Most of the plane should have crumpled as I have explained. And we even have the Evan Fairbanks video, which shows the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through air, which is not only preposterous but demonstrates there was no loss of speed.

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Oct 31 2010, 07:16 AM) *
thanks for links jim, i will most certainly take a look!

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...
jfetzer
Well, by your hypothesis, assume the side of the building was half windows and half steel plates, which were connected by steel trusses to the core columns and filled with 4" of concrete, which means that each floor represents an acer of concrete--and it was intersection with eight (8) of them! (Go to my Buenos Aires Powerpoint at http://911scholars.org and study the first fifteen slides and you will see the problem.) Given your assumptions, the parts of the plane that hit the windows should have passes through. But what about the parts that hit the steel plates? Surely they should not have passed through, too? So if roughly half of the plane, by your hypothesis, should have passed through, half should not. Moreover, the parts that would have passed through given your hypothesis were connected by steel members to parts that would not, surely more than half of the plane (including various interconnected parts) should not have passed through. Since that didn't happen -- the entire plane is shown passing effortlessly into the building -- something is very wrong. So how was it done?

QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 31 2010, 09:46 AM) *
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?
elreb
I was just reading up on the B-25 that hit the Empire State building and got to wondering how any plane of any type could have caused the twin towers to collapse.

I mean even a 747 with expert pilot 1st Lt. George W. Bush at the helm. No way…”Bush-pilot”

GroundPounder
QUOTE (elreb @ Oct 29 2010, 03:15 PM) *


good cartoon !!
amazed!
Mr. Fetzer

I see it rather like a huge paper shredder at work. The paper was, of course, the soft aluminum skin. But like shredding paper with paper clips inside, the shredder might be damaged, depending on the size of the paper clips, while the rest of the paper is pulled in.

Steel parts of the airplane did indeed 'pass through', as demonstrated by landing gear and engine parts downfield in Manhattan that day, and generally consistent with the pieces seen with downward trajectories in the film. Official rumor, for whatever that's worth, has it that some heavier part of the airplane, I think landing gear related, came down in the notorious Burlington Coat Factory, soon to become a muslim cultural center.

As the various steel pieces punctured the exoskeleton, and I'm entirely open to the idea that there might have been explosive charges placed to open such a penetration even wider, the following aluminum pieces(fuselage and wings) had some type of hole to enter through more easily. Indeed, heavier structures inside the building shredded and stopped the aft sections of the airplane.

As the fuel was atomized, a fireball ensued, seen on videos and cameras everywhere nearby.
Tamborine man
QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 29 2010, 12:46 PM) *
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?



amazed,

i'm amazed you mention nothing about the plane tilting to such an extent
that it would have encountered the resistance of 4 to 5 reinforced concrete
floors supported and 'protected' at the facade by continues 4 feet wide steel
plating!

Obviously the wings and vertical stabilizer would not have impacted the
building with the same force as that of the main body, and would therefore
have meet much stronger resistance from the floors they hit, but no video
show any difference in this regard. The 'whole' plane glides effortlessly into
the building, while scornfully and mockingly laughing at the whole world.

And for you this 'picture' looks quite normal and sensible??
I'm truly surprised.

Hope you will be kind enough to explain to me why you don't take the above
into consideration, as it seems to me i'm much more 'amazed' than you are,
about this discrepancy.

Thanks and cheers
bill
Right with you, Jim


This is what happens to an F-4 hitting concrete at 500 mph

empty weight of F-4 about 30,000 pounds and it is built like the proverbial brick s***house compared to a 76(5)7

bill
and

if you want to see a 'real' plane fly out of a building skip to about 3 minutes

could it be any more 'in your face', sheeple



bill
here is a 'hard landing' in a passenger jet at about 150 kts

Tamborine man
I'm pleased that Fetzer's and my own response to the post by 'amazed' pretty
much deal with the same problems we have with the content. We must have
submitted our posts rather simultaneously!

Now that my "questions" appear after the reply from 'amazed', i'll try 'gracefully'
to bow out and leave further responses to those two dear gentlemen.

Cheers
amazed!
Tamborine Man

Your term 'tilting' is vague, and I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean 'banking'? Or perhaps 'pitching down'? I will happily respond further when that is clarified.

Your claim that the wings and vertical tail would somehow encounter more resistance than other parts of the airplane is also confusing. Again, I would happily respond further if you could make your brand of physics a bit less murky.

And what is the point of showing the old F-4 sledding into the concrete wall? Are we suggesting that there is a similarity between the concrete wall and the the exoskeleton of the tower?
bill
"And what is the point of showing the old F-4 sledding into the concrete wall? Are we suggesting that there is a similarity between the concrete wall and the the exoskeleton of the tower? "



NO

I am stating that the multiple acres (8 floors is it) of conrete floor slabs is very comparable to a the concrete slab in the video.
amazed!
Comparable but not similar, OK......
Tamborine man
Hi amazed,


QUOTE
Your term 'tilting' is vague, and I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean 'banking'? Or perhaps 'pitching down'? I will happily respond further when that is clarified.


'tilt', (in the context we are talking about): = 'to move or cause to move into a sloping position'.
As in: 'the plane tilting (or sloping) to such an extent that it would have encountered the resistance of 4 to 5
reinforced concrete floors....'.

QUOTE
Your claim that the wings and vertical tail would somehow encounter more resistance than other parts of the airplane is also confusing. Again, I would happily respond further if you could make your brand of physics a bit less murky.


I wrote, (with the above in mind): ' Obviously the wings and vertical stabilizer would not have impacted
the building with the same force as that of the main body, and would therefore have meet much stronger
resistance from the floors they hit....' (meaning of course, the 4 to 5 concrete floors mentioned above).


Hope this makes it much more clear for you!

Cheers
amazed!
Thanks for the clarification TM, I understand what you're trying to say now.

Still, I find it unpersuasive, assuming that you offer it in support of the NPT.

I understand that there are certain irregularities with certain videos. I happily defer in those matters to folks who know much more about pixels and videos than I do.

But the possible existence of irregular video qualities is very far indeed from any sort of proof or evidence that no Boeing struck the tower. And the fact that there are other pictures and accounts of the event, and the fact that there is physical evidence of landing gear and engine parts downfield from the point of impact strongly suggest that there was indeed a Boeing strike there that morning.
ogrady
Its amusing to me to see that people who know the govt./media constructed the lie about 911 and brainwashed the tube viewers with the conclusion that Osama orchestrated the attack before the first tower even fell find all this possible and plausible yet balk at the idea that the TV would ever show them doctored video.

I have tirelessly tried to point people to the German website 'German Engineers Help the USA' which clearly shows that, although we are shown video of a plane effortlessly passing into a building without even slowing down, the holes left in the building would not have admitted an airplane. Apparently, no one wants to look.

Everyone here knows that the plane speed is a lie. Everyone knows the news media sold us this disgraceful story. Yet everyone believes in planes.

I'm no genius, engineer, or pilot, but I know an airplane can't fly through a building. Yet, this is the very central issue that no one wants to think about or even intelligently discuss. Apparently it harms the oh-so-successful truth movement.

Even though 911 is all a total lie, some people want to cling to parts of the story. I can't figure it out, Jim. Can you?
amazed!
Ogrady

I was not there that day, but I strongly suspect there are quite a few people that were on the streets that morning who would laugh out loud at your claim that there was no Boeing there that day....
albertchampion
i always wonder about the veracity of witnesses, especially when so many may have been selected by the state.

and i care to cite these recent events: the jfk hit, the martin luther king hit, the rfk hit, the jfkjr hit, the assault on the branch davidians outside of waco, OK bomb, to name but a few incidents where i think fiction[usg perception management] governed the story fed to the public.

and let us remember all the prevarications foisted on the public concerning the events of that day....

a commercial airliner colliding with terrain at the pentagram - leaving no evidence. the official story is that the aircraft vaporized after impact. puhleeeze. and yet, despite that complete vaporization of that aircraft, usg autopsists claimed to have identified passengers from dna. you believe that one, do you?

or how about that commercial airliner that dove into the ground in PA, leaving no consequential debris. puhleeze, do you really believe that is how aircraft collide with terrain?

it is my assertion that everything the usg fed you on that day was a grotesque series of lies. and ted olson is the zenith of that mass of deceit. the solicitor general of the usa[the usa's chief legal officer], the consigliere of the bush2 regime, related a series of lies to the public about phone calls from his wife on that day.

and let me go further, here. there was no legally probative evidence ever proferred validating any airliner collisions with terrain at the wtc on 11/09/01. as you should know well, all evidence that could have been probative was disappeared by the usg. for all practical purposes, everything you think you know about the events of that day is "hearsay".

in a sense, it is similar to what we know about the causes of death of jfk, jfkjr.

never forget how it was explained to the public immediately afterwards, by selected usg spokespersons/witnesses[sic], that vast and superhot fires caused the towers to collapse at virtually free-fall speeds.

if you have forgotten how the gangsters running this country really operate, i recommend that you refresh your memory banks.

on this month long trip, ordinarily i would have taken real books with me. but, i determined that the kindle was the better device. and it has been. one of the books that i loaded and have read was phillp f nelson's LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION. it is a good place to start when contemplating fiction versus reality.

the other book i downloaded, also a history forgotten, is entitled THE HELLHOUND OF WALL STREET: HOW FERDINAND PECORA'S INVESTIGATION OF THE GREAT CRASH FOREVER CHANGED AMERICAN FINANCE. it is a great read. because it also reveals how history is altered, rigorously, over time. and how finance and us politicians have reverted to the gangsterdom of the 1920's.

and then, i suppose, if you want to learn how financial history is being tailored in front of your eyes by the "official" journals of this
era, i recommend this site http://maxkeiser.com. do pay attention to today's report[#91].

in closing, let us never forget the implosion demolition of wtc 7. an event fiercely hidden from the public.

if you don't think that the usg has the powers to manipulate public perceptions, then you haven't been paying attention.
SanderO
WTC 7 was hidden from most observers but not all. It was left out of the story and so many who experience 9/11 as a media event (most of the world) their understanding would be completely shaped by the media presentation.

We've determined that many images and "facts" were manipulated and the entire actual event turned into a work of fiction - an illusion. But that doesn't mean every single aspect of the event was a fabrication. Taken to its logical conclusion... nothing happened it was all an illusion.

The planes are a huge conundrum. There are so many anomalies from who boarded them, what gate they were boarded at, what planes were boarded, what planes took off, what speed did they fly at, where is the positive ID of the planes from debris and so on. I've heard witnesses report everything from a Cesna to a jumbo jet,a military drone and a missile and even there was no planes at all only explosions and the suggestion that witnesses saw planes.

Can we reverse engineer what happened from all the debris?
Omega892R09
QUOTE (bill @ Oct 30 2010, 12:13 PM) *
and

if you want to see a 'real' plane fly out of a building skip to about 3 minutes

could it be any more 'in your face', sheeple

Quite agree Bill.

And that was a Buccaneer S2 if I am not mistaken.



and

Omega892R09
QUOTE (bill @ Oct 30 2010, 12:22 PM) *
here is a 'hard landing' in a passenger jet at about 150 kts

Which once again raises the questions of what happened to the tails, and wing tips for that matter, of all three supposed 'strike' aircraft that day.

I have seen with my own eyes what happens when the pilots of much tougher military aircraft get it wrong!
jfetzer
Tamborine man,

You and Bill seem to me to be "right on"! I think the specifics of the New York events are compounded by many
other more general considerations that strongly suggest the four may have been "phantom" flights. Consider:

Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never been able to prove the alleged hijackers were aboard:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-is-...html?show=votes

David Ray Griffin has shown that the phone calls from the planes--all of calls from all of the planes--were faked:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=16924

Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely identifiable component parts from
the four aircraft, the government has yet to produce even one!

FAA Registration Data, which I have in hand, shows that the planes corresponding to Flights 11 and 77 were not
de-registered until 01/14/202 and those corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 not until 09/28/2005.

This post came to me today, which expresses a fighter pilot's concerns about some of the improbabilities of 9/11:

Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:15:11 AM
Subject: found on a 911 blog...opinions of a jet pilot

In my professional opinion as an Aviator, I have the following concerns, which I would like to title “Aviation Improbabilities”. Now, I am not saying that these are impossible to happen as individual occurrences, but that it is highly improbable that they would all occur in series to have the outcome as professed by the US Government.

-Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots voluntarily giving up control of their aircraft to individuals stating they have box cutters and have or will kill passengers; this is not the established protocol to give up control of aircraft and responsibility of safety for your passengers and crew

-Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots being killed without a deliberate violent flight control reaction that would upend any cockpit invasion

-Improbability of ALL 8 Airline Pilots not entering the Hijack or Emergency Code into the transponder, alerting ATC of a serious problem

-Improbability IF the above occurred that the marginally-trained hijackers would be able to operate the navigational systems and fly to specific points in airspace using Instrument Flight Rules

-Improbability of maneuvering the airliners above 400 kts airspeed (considered high speed) and precisely striking the comparatively small WTC 1 & 2 (Professional pilots in simulators have about a one in three chance of accomplishing this maneuver.)

-Improbability of maneuvering AA Flight 77 from 35,000 feet descending to hit the Pentagon, as stated by USG in an analysis of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR); specifically a 330 degree turn from 7000’, descending at a controlled airspeed of 290-300 kts, to precisely strike the Pentagon at ground level by a minimally-trained, unqualified hijacker

-As a military fighter pilot, I have questions as to why numerous Air Defense systems were not utilized that day, including intercept aircraft that had plenty of time from 8:14 am when Boston Center Air Traffic Controllers realized something was wrong with AA Flight 11, after it did not respond to authorization to change flight levels. There were 3 Air Defense Exercises ongoing on Sep 11, and their command posts and chain of commands were fully staffed. Otis AFB, MA had ANG F-15 fighter-interceptors nearby which were airborne “too late” (8:53 launch); Flight 11 hit the North Tower at 8:45 am, followed by Flight 175 hitting the South Tower at 9:03am. Many other bases, including Andrews AFB outside Wash DC and Langley AFB VA have fighters on alert or available - why did none of them launch in time to intercept Flight 77, as it did not strike until 9:37 am?

-Finally, as an experienced aircraft investigator, I have serious questions regarding several of the crash sites. Again, it is IMPROBABLE that of the 8 “black boxes”, in reality a bright orange FDR and a bright orange CVR on each of the aircraft, only the FDR from Flight 77 into the Pentagon and both recorders from Flight 93 in Pennsylvania were recovered. With over 1.5 Million man-hours of time sorting through debris at Fresh Kills site in New Jersey, it is IMPROBABLE that we don’t have more aircraft evidence of what actually occurred in each of the unfortunate airliners that day. Thank you again for your time and consideration of these important facts."

There thus appears to be strong evidence, not only of fakery in New York, but of fakery throughout the events of 9/11.

Jim

QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Nov 1 2010, 09:25 AM) *
I'm pleased that Fetzer's and my own response to the post by 'amazed' pretty
much deal with the same problems we have with the content. We must have
submitted our posts rather simultaneously!

Now that my "questions" appear after the reply from 'amazed', i'll try 'gracefully'
to bow out and leave further responses to those two dear gentlemen.

Cheers
SanderO
Mr. Fetzer,

I am still waiting to see your engineering calculations and some sort of proof of the safety factor for the 4" thick concrete slabs/composite floor system.

Do you really think a large commercial jet (assuming there was one) would "bounce off" or break apart if it flew into the twin towers... and there would be no damage to the 1/4" thick built up plate box columns?

Considering the amount of disinformation, stonewalling etc. from the FBI how does anyone determine the truth of any of their official statements?

This is indeed a large problem in dissecting what happened on 9/11/01. The government is control of or has destroyed the evidence and then issues statements and reports through is own agencies explaining what happened or what didn't happened. You can find contradictions in their pronouncements, but it's hard to find conclusive facts.
jfetzer
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html provides diagrams of the trusses that connected the external steel support columns to the core columns. While the concrete may have been lighter than that used in road construction, for example, the plane hitting the North Tower was intersecting at least six and that hitting the South Tower eight.

While I certainly do not think nor have I ever suggested that there was no damage to the support columns, which means that you have exaggerated my position to make it easier to attack, there should have been crumpling of much of the fuselage, with wings and tail breaking off and bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. It didn't happen.

As for assessing the truth of the government's claims, I have publish a summary of twenty points that refute the OCT, which is archived in the upper-left hand corner of http://911scholars.org. While you are there, watch "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", or go to http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ and watch the presentation in which I explain all of this.

QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 4 2010, 08:56 AM) *
Mr. Fetzer,

I am still waiting to see your engineering calculations and some sort of proof of the safety factor for the 4" thick concrete slabs/composite floor system.

Do you really think a large commercial jet (assuming there was one) would "bounce off" or break apart if it flew into the twin towers... and there would be no damage to the 1/4" thick built up plate box columns?

Considering the amount of disinformation, stonewalling etc. from the FBI how does anyone determine the truth of any of their official statements?

This is indeed a large problem in dissecting what happened on 9/11/02. The government is control of or has destroyed the evidence and then issues statements and reports through is own agencies explaining what happened or what didn't happened. You can find contradictions in their pronouncements, but it's hard to find conclusive facts.
SanderO
Mr. Fetzer,

If the plane struck the tower was a 757 its fuselage would be something like 5 meters in diameter and it would strike at most 3 slabs. However the impact to the slabs would have been via the columns and the spandrel plates to which the trusses were connected... essentially distibuting the impact. The dynamic load to the end of the top truss chord would have destroyed it and separated it from the concrete which likely would have dropped. It's quite hard to do an FEA on such complex structures. The fact remains that such a plane weighing several hundred thousand pound traveling at a few hundred miles an hour represents enough kinetic energy to destroy the columns and the flimsy floor stricture it encountered. And don't forget that parts of the plane are non compressible hardened titanium steel and they are moving at the same velocity.

What would you expect if a truck carrying a jet engine on a flat bed was moving at 300 mph and there was a collision with a fixed object... How much concrete would it take to stop it?
Tamborine man
SanderO, you wote:

QUOTE
"Do you really think a large commercial jet (assuming there was one) would "bounce off" or break apart if it flew into the twin towers... and there would be no damage to the 1/4" thick built up plate box columns?"


"The dynamic load to the end of the top truss chord would have destroyed it and separated it from the concrete which likely would have dropped. "


"What would you expect if a truck carrying a jet engine on a flat bed was moving at 300 mph and there was a collision with a fixed object... How much concrete would it take to stop it?"


I cannot imagine any intelligent person would ever write this kind of stuff,

so would you be kind enough to explain to us what on earth possessed you

to actually type out this rubbish nonsense above?

Also explain please, why you too fail to mention completely the presence of

wings and vertical stabilizer on the plane and the role these would have played

in the supposed scenario we are talking about?

Thanks

Cheers
SanderO
I am sorry, I don't understand what your objection is.

I was trying to say that the kinetic energy possessed by a large plane moving at several hundred mph would surely destroy the 1/4" steel plate construction of the facade panels where the collision occurred. That of course would be if a such a plane hit the tower at that speed.

Certainly this is true for the larger hardened steel elements and even the liquid filled tanks.
Tamborine man
QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 3 2010, 04:11 AM) *
I am sorry, I don't understand what your objection is.

I was trying to say that the kinetic energy possessed by a large plane moving at several hundred mph would surely destroy the 1/4" steel plate construction of the facade panels where the collision occurred. That of course would be if a such a plane hit the tower at that speed.

Certainly this is true for the larger hardened steel elements and even the liquid filled tanks.



This is getting worse, SanderO!

Not that i think you'll answer this question, but i'll ask it anyway:

How many people in this forum and in other 9/11 forums worldwide do you

think will disagree with you, and instead maintain that no destruction would

occur to the facade if a plane smashed into one of the twin towers?


Cheers
SanderO
Tamborine, you have a complicated way of asking a question.

I can't answer how many people think that if a plane hit the tower no destruction would take place... I think most people would expect damage from a plane flying into the towers (is that the question? and I agree)... but ask Jim Fetzer... he seems to take the rock-paper-scissors approach... aluminum cannot destroy steel in collision... at least that is what I believe he wrote.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.