Friday, November 29, 2013

Using Nanothermite to Blow Up Denialism


Noam Chomsky on denialism, in this case the 9-11 brand, but the points he makes are the right ones.  To be honest, Eli is not a huge Chomsky fan, but the guy is smart and will update his priors

384 comments:

1 – 200 of 384   Newer›   Newest»
Tom Curtis said...

You can find the extra three minutes of Chomksi's response here:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/noam-chomsky-dismisses-911-truther-going-on-internet-doesnt-make-you-physicist/

EliRabett said...

Yep but Eli did not consider them relevant to the point

Tom Curtis said...

I can see why a lagomorph would think that, but surely, as in the case of 911, there is overwhelming counter evidence against the deniers theories, or at least, many of them - and you don't need to be a scientist to follow that evidence.

EliRabett said...

Eli is a great fan of the principle of parsimony

Anonymous said...

Re: parsimony, the last three minutes and Chomsky's non-scientific "one-minute think"

Yes, as Professor C said, the Bush administration WAS obsessed with Iraq before 911. But he fails to point out that would-be members of said administration, along with many would-be supporters, were, also before 911, suggesting that "another Pearl Harbor" would surely make a lot easier their neo-con goal of world domination.

Note, aslo, that once the authorization to use force was passed, there was NO limit to the geographical locations at which the "terr'ists" could be "hunted down."

Here's the wiki article re Pearl Harbor and PNAC: http://tinyurl.com/2rp4c

The actual PNAC website has been "suspended."

Here is a link to an example of a Chomsky-approved approach:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

OK, 3-2-1, let the guffaws begin.

John Puma

Tom Curtis said...

John Puma, when you have to set up your own journal to get published ("Journal of 911 Studies") you are no longer taking your case to the scientific community. Rather, you are creating for your self a pseudo-scientific ghetto. The analogy to "Energy and Environment" and the "Journal of Creation" applies. In any event, because you are no longer seeking to engage with the scientific community, or listen to their criticisms, you are not following the Chomski approach.

Lionel A said...

What Chomsky is skating around is that there are qualified scientists and engineers who have studied the collapse of the three main building on 9/11, and the fellow who stood up mentioned the group who have brought this together.

There is another line of enquiry and that is study of the aviation events of that day especially with the dichotomy between the flight tracks of the aircraft from the NTSB and what was aerodynamically and structurally possible.

In short, the aircraft supposedly involved that day were of types which would not have maintained a cohesive structure until the point of impact. The airspeeds and manoeuvres required have been shown to be outside of their performance envelopes. In short the engines of e.g. a 737 are not designed for strike jet speeds and manoeuvres at low altitude as well as many other issues.

See Pilots for 9/11 Truth for more where the core are not amongst the ranks of conspiracy theory agitators but seekers after the truth from personal knowledge and experience. As with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Scoff if you like. I will let the content there speak for itself if you care to engage with an open mind.

EliRabett said...

So Lionel, take Chomsky's advice and btw, there are people looking for birth certificates who might use your help

Lionel A said...

Very droll Eli.

Thing is much of the ground work into my appreciation that things did not 'go down' that day as described in official circles WRT aircraft tricks was carried out over a long period of time before those events.

Have you informed yourself as to the capabilities of 757 and 767 aircraft WRT Vmo/Mmo?

See here:

Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed etc.

Heck, even Concorde had restrictions at low altitude - a strike jet it wasn't.



Kevin O'Neill said...

The one plane that has always bothered me is UAL Flight 93. I was at home on the day of 9/11. I spent most of it on the phone with my father who was retired. We were each flipping channels trying to find the latest tidbit of news and relaying which channels had something new.

At one point I saw a report of a secondary debris field found for flight 93. I don't know much about airplanes, aerodynamics, or plane crashes - but I immediately thought this was a big deal. I relayed the information to my dad and explained what it meant - the plane must have started to disintegrate in air.

But that report was never repeated. Not that day or the next. I *knew* I'd seen it so I searched the internet, and sure enough the reports were there in local newspapers in Pennsylvania.

Reports the same day from Nashua, New Hampshire also had this (regarding Flight 93), "Although controllers don't have complete details of the Air Force's chase of the Boeing 757, they have learned the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet.
"He must've seen the whole thing," the employee said of the F-16 pilot's view of Flight 93's crash."

Same day reports in local papers of debris found up to 6 miles away and air traffic controllers saying the plane was being tracked by an F16. A few months after 9/11 I wrote a short essay with my questions. http://everything2.com/user/kto9/writeups/United+Airlines+Flight+93

I haven't given the matter a lot of thought since then, but neither have I ever seen any good answers.

Anonymous said...

"btw, there are people looking for birth certificates who might use your help'

Eli has such convincing physics arguments.

Susan Anderson said...

I'm relieved somebody else has trouble with Chomsky while respecting his POV and work. I had to "update my priors" not long ago.

This is powerful, though not really news, for those unaware of the aggressiveness and obstinate cultivation of ignorance via conspiracy theory of the denial campaign:

"Global warming deniers guilty of attack on science"





Anonymous said...

There is an obvious irony that seems to be completely lost on those who accept the official government "story" on 911 but nonetheless attempt to dismiss those who question that story as "conspiracy theorists".

Even the government's version of events is actually a "conspiracy theory" which makes those who accept it "Conspiracy theorists", by definition.


The fact that even the official version of events is a conspiracy theory makes the 911 case unlike the case of AGW, the moon landing, birthers and JFK.

Whatever else may be true, theory that a version of events involves a conspiracy does not make it wrong -- and certainly does not make it worthy of dismissal a priori.

One needs to look at the actual evidence to decide that.

The folks who lump "911 truthers" together with birthers in an effort to dismiss their arguments without even addressing them are certainly not doing the latter.

John Mashey said...

Susan: thanks for the link.

EliRabett said...

As Chomsky said, there are people who know about such stuff and the NIST reports are on line for those who can understand them
------------------
NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
-------------------

Eli not eagerly awaits reading the NNIST response about the nanothermite explosions.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Nanothermions! They're here, and the vibrate among us! You need special glasses to see them.

Anonymous said...

Eli should take his own advice and read the NIST report.

WTC 7 came down at free-fall acceleration for over 2 seconds.

That's not a "conspiracy theory". It's fact, documented in the final NIST report.

But that fact was included only after one of the so-called "911 conspiracy theorists" (David Chandler, a physicist) analyzed video of the collapse and pointed out to NIST that their own draft report did not accurately reflect the actual dynamics of the building collapse. (Here's Chandler's analysis, which critiques NIST's draft report)

Note that it was a high school physics teacher (Chandler) who corrected the NIST's analysis, NOT some high powered academic at MIT or some other elite (or even third rate) university or some scientific organization (like NAS, ASME, ASCE ,etc). Perhaps Chomsky can explain why none of the latter picked up on and corrected NIST's very basic (high school level physics) "error".

NIST addressed their "oversight" in their final published report with a graph showing that WTC indeed experienced free-fall for about 2 seconds as Chandler had pointed out to them (talked about here by David Chandler (NIST's final graph showing free-fall is shown at 9:33)) but nonetheless never explained the necessary physical repercussions of such free-fall acceleration for a building.

Namely, neither NIST or any other government agency (or scientific institution or organization), for that matter) has ever addressed just how a building can experience virtual free fall acceleration (with such beautiful symmetry, no less), for even part of it's collapse, when there is (supposedly) very strong (steel) underlying support structure in place that would necessarily resist the collapse (absorb some of the available gravitational potential energy and thereby prevent such free-fall collapse from occurring: i.e. prevent all the energy from going into kinetic energy of collapse, the case for free-fall)

WTC7 was never hit by an airplane and anyone who believes that scattered office fires can lead to the total and highly symmetrical collapse of a steel frame building at free-fall acceleration (for several seconds) is badly in need of a very basic physics course.

NIST's "model" of "progressive" collapse (starting at one location in the building, at one column in fact, and propagating throughout the building) is simply not consistent with the reality (actual dynamics) of the collapse, which is readily apparent in the videos. Among other things, such a progressive collapse would not exhibit the actual symmetry that was exhibited (to say nothing of not explain free fall for part of the collapse). If a model is not consistent with the observed facts, it's not a good model and must be rejected. End of story.

Chomsky never actually addresses any physics (not surprising since he's a linguist) which makes his comment deriding those who have "spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics" very funny indeed. (Note to Noam: David Chandler has a masters in physics, teaches it to folks who, by the end of the class, undoubtedly know far more physics than you ever will, and has spent countless hours analyzing the actual evidence for WTC and other buildings as well)

But, if Noam (or Eli or anyone else) can explain how a steel frame building can experience free fall for even part of its collapse (and very symmetrically, at that, initiating very uniformly across the 100m length of WTC) onto its own footprint without uniform "removal" of the underlying steel support structure , then by all means, do so.

Conservation of energy denial has a long and storied history (see "perpetual motion") and I'd love to see the latest version documented here on Rabett Run for posterity.

Anonymous said...

Chandler's analysis

EliRabett said...

From the FAQ http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Anonymous said...

You are simply parroting NIST's claims, Eli.

But David Chandler's analysis deals with the specific part of the collapse during which the (upper part of) the building underwent free-fall.

He (and I) certainly never claimed that the building was in free-fall for the entire duration of it's collapse.

In fact, NIST showed that graph that you refer to in direct response to the input from David Chandler (who basically shows the same thing in his analysis -- a period during which top of the building had very low acceleration, followed by a period of about 2 seconds when it experienced roughly free-fall acceleration followed by a brief period (just before the top of the building disappeared) during which the acceleration decreased (as a result of finally meeting resistance)

Simply put, NIST and (and you) must explain how the building was able to undergo free-fall during the period for which it did.

Free-fall (of the upper part of the building) for even that period of 2 seconds is only possible if there is no resistance (from the lower part).

Where did the resistance go, Eli? What happened to the structural steel that was supporting the upper part of the building?

NIST never explained this in their report

And you certainly have not done so in your above response (merely pointing out the three stages shown on the graph, as it were, something that was actually part of Chandler's analysis, at any rate).

Eli, if you are going to add something substantive, please do, but so far, You have added nothing of any substance that was not already pointed out by David Chandler.


dhogaza said...

Why would the government conspirators bother with WTC 7, when the destruction of the two main buildings were surely sufficient to shock the nation. Indeed, the destruction of one of the two main buildings would've been sufficient.

Why would one build a conspiracy requiring the collaboration of a very large number of people, 100% of whom have remained silent for over a decade now, when a simple approach such as hiring some disgruntled middle easterners to fly airplanes into buildings would've clearly sufficed?

Nothing adds up ...

EliRabett said...

David Chandler is exactly the guy that Chomsky describes. Poke about a bit

Anonymous said...

Eli: "David Chandler is exactly the guy that Chomsky describes. Poke about a bit".

What a devastating physics-take down of Chandler's analysis.

For anyone who missed it above, I would merely re-iterate that it was Chandler's analysis and comments that led NIST to modify their report, so perhaps he actually knows some physics and does not fall into Chomsky's category of those who have "spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics".

Sadly, I'm not sure Chomsky would be able to distinguish between the two if he were confronted with an individual of both types.








dhogaza said...

"You are simply parroting NIST's claims, Eli."

And you, of course, are simply parroting Chandler's claims.

Again, what would be the motivation for such a complicated plot that could be executed much more simply by recruiting pilots to fly airplanes into the WTC towers?

Don Gisselbeck said...

This thread might be better off if moved to Metabunk. They are good at debunking nanothermite, HAARP weather modification, cemtrails, etc.

Unknown said...

The typical 9-11 conspiracy theorist has the government blowing up buildings. This fails in the face of other evidence and fails the test of reason, that such a large conspiracy could possibly be concocted without anyone having an attack of conscience. That any group, even in the military, could be uniformly convinced to do such a thing... and no whistles blown.

So we look for an alternate theory that explains how someone might have done this and the government might WISH to cover it up, and people might be convinced to go along with that cover up.

What immediately jumps at us is that there could have been a ground team, and possibly more than one, in there to sabotage the buildings.

The government would very much wish to NOT have people thinking that that had happened. The panic around the event getting magnified as that would have done could easily have been perceived at the time, to lead to far worse outcomes for the US.

This scenario is as impossible to prove or disprove as any of the rest. It has the advantage of not straining credulity with respect to conspiracies in the service of the US government.

Consider the likelihood that this attack did NOT have a ground component ?

respectfully
bj

Susan Anderson said...

Eli, my luv (huh? just kidding), they got less than nuthin' Ignore them. Point taken, for those with eyes and minds to take it in.

Martin Vermeer said...

xkcd had it nailed... and knows how Eli feels now

Russell Seitz said...

Bravo to Chomsky for keeping his mind well ventilated by driving his 300 HP speedboat around at speed without ear protection. He and 41 should have a race sometime.

Lionel A said...

Eli: "In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds..."

Yes well. I read that report, still have copies here, some time back and followed its disembowelling at the time.

To question why WTC 7 had to come down is to show that you are not aware of the function of WTC 7 that day.

Rudolf Guiliani (of questionable behaviour that day) had WTC7 stiffened into a command and control centre and it was likely used as a command centre to control the demolition of WTC1 and WTC2. You may like to consider the strange case of the top block of WTC2 which toppled and thus should have fallen down one side one side but which disintegrated in the air. Another odd thing is that a fire chief on the spot in WTC2 remarked that another couple of 'lines' (hoses) would have the fire out. Then it exploded. How? Explain the physics there.

There were also other sensitive areas within WTC 7 such as financial control and records of operational details of the alphabet soup of national security organisations.

The initial NIST report was so fundamentally flawed that eventually even NIST became embarrassed and had to issue corrections.

Now it is some time since I have delved into all this but here is a good start for those with a truly open mind:

Pilots for 9/11 Truth - World Trade Center Complex, WTC 7.

Now the quality of discussion is variable but it is possible to sort out the genuinely knowledgeable from the cranks.

Also P4911 have a number of other off topic threads going which should not be taken as a marker for the frame of mind of the core who have some scientific/engineering/aviation expertise.

Look around in the other clearly defined areas here , you might surprise yourself.

There have been several threads on global warming and climate change where I have put the scientific side against open hostility and sarcasm from some, but then climate change to them is like strange events of 9/11 to you - a hoax.

guthrie said...

The thing about the passenger jets doing odd manouvres is surely explained by such planes being overengineered - I recall seeing a youtube clip of the break testing of an airplane wing, they got it to 2.5 times the required standard before it snapped.
Was the alleged debris field ever actually linked to Flight 93, or maybe someone made a mistake in identifying a bunch of scrap?

dhogaza said...

"The thing about the passenger jets doing odd manouvres is surely explained by such planes being overengineered - I recall seeing a youtube clip of the break testing of an airplane wing, they got it to 2.5 times the required standard before it snapped."

Passenger airliners are not designed for, nor rated and certified for, aerobatics.

That did not stop the chief test pilot of Boeing from famously doing an unauthorized barrel roll during the first public demonstration of the 707 prototype over Seattle's Sea Fair celebration, in front of airline execs from around the world...

Actually, two barrel rolls in succession, just in case folks missed the first one ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk

dhogaza said...

Lionel A:

"To question why WTC 7 had to come down is to show that you are not aware of the function of WTC 7 that day.

Rudolf Guiliani (of questionable behaviour that day) had WTC7 stiffened into a command and control centre and it was likely used as a command centre to control the demolition of WTC1 and WTC2."

You are right. I was unaware of that fact. I had thought that it was Bush, not Rudy, who had the CIA turn it into a command center.

Snicker.

EliRabett said...

Eli is merely gathering data for Willard Tony's demolition of Lewandowsky

Anonymous said...

No one has addressed the central question regarding WTC7:

How can the entire 100m roof-line of a steel frame building (with 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns) suddenly and uniformly start "falling" (quite literally) and experience free fall acceleration for roughly 2 seconds before meeting any resistance whatsoever?

What physical mechanism(s) is(are) capable of virtually simultaneously "removing" all the underlying support structure so that the top of a massive steel frame building can come down at free-fall for 2 seconds and in such a highly symmetrical fashion?

I can envision only one (and it doesn't involve scattered office fires leading to a highly contrived "progressive collapse" originating at a single girder, as proposed by NIST)

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

The WTC question is nonsense. I'm more rather interested in Chomsky's claim that 'discoveries' can be properly handled by the status quo.

The bigger they come, the harder they fall.

Lionel A said...

dhogaza fill your boots with snickers but the facts of the matter WRT flight paths and speeds for the aircraft concerned that day as reported by the authorities do not stand up to scrutiny to those with knowledge of how aircraft are designed, built and operated.

Now I respect and agree with your opinions WRT climate change etc., because study of the topic informs me. Now please extend the same courtesy by looking into aviation matters yourself.

Here is some help:

Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

and take your time considering this and the questions raised

Full Film - 9/11: World Trade Center Attack, Embedded and Streaming here!


and

NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

Now having seen how one aspect of the official version of events is flawed, should you not ask yourself what is being covered up and why?

FWIW I don't care for Alex 'Infowars' Jones either.

EliRabett said...

No No Nanothermite

Anonymous said...

Thomsa Lee Elifritz claims: "The WTC question is nonsense."

First, that question addressed WTC7 specifically. The "7" not an inconsequential matter.

Second, a question about the observed dynamics of a building's collapse is only "nonsense" to those who don't know very basic physics.

It's actually a well established FACT that the roof-line of the building underwent free fall acceleration for roughly 2 seconds.

One can actually measure it oneself from the available videos, something lots of people, including myself have done. As David Chandler says, "it's not rocket science", but it does take an understanding of very basic (high school level) physics.

Even NIST grudgingly acknowledged the existence (if not explanation for) the 2 second free-fall on their graph in the updated version of their report (after a question about that very free-fall period from physicist David Chandler).

So, the claim that the question about the dynamics of the building's free-fall period is nonsense would seem to be, well, nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Chris Mohr (who is clueless about very basic physics as demonstrated by David Chandler here) is a perfect example of someone for whom the "question about WTC7" above would undoubtedly appear to be "nonsense".

Anonymous said...

To Eli's claim above that "David Chandler is exactly the guy that Chomsky describes" (Chomsky refers to those who have "spent an hour on the internet and think they know a lot of physics")

my only suggestion would be to watch some of Chandler's presentations and decide for yourself.

You might start with Chandler's take-down of Chris Mohr (referred to above).

It's very basic physics to be sure, but it should be perfectly clear to anyone who knows any physics at all that David Chandler is "well above" the hypothetical "hour-on-the-internet physics expert" that Chomsky refers to.

I know Eli is certainly not among those who are ignorant of basic physics, so that narrows the possibilities for why he would claim that "David Chandler is exactly the guy that Chomsky describes".

dhogaza said...

Here's a "truther" who is also a licensed 767 pilot who works at a simulator facility found when trying to fly the 767 at 9/11 speeds:

"We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed."

Gosh. No problem.

And why would there be a problem? There is no logical reason for there being one ... as long as you stay below Mach speed, you'll be fine, as long as you don't run into anything (tall buildings come to mind).

dhogaza said...

Need to explain this:

"This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency."

"this", in this context, is the 360 knot recommended top speed at low altitude. It is not a structural limitation, it's due to thrust availability in emergency situations (which among other things are more critical at low altitude as you have relatively little altitude in hand to recover or maneuver).

EliRabett said...

Now Eli knows him someDavid Chandlers and your David Chandler ain't no David Chandler.

As to his physics, well let us say that there are some issues. Nevermind. Eli is sure that Willis will soon arrive.

Russell Seitz said...

Having once been obliged, in the interest of technical versimilitude, to crawl around the engineering spaces of a 757 from nose to tail, and spend a day or two pondering the beast's six inch thick looseleaf flight manual , I can testify that you have to go waaay outside the flight envelope to make the wings fall off.

Though its skin be scary thin, in areas of stress concentration the thing is still beefed up to a 400% marging of safety.

Anonymous said...

Eli,

NIST confirmed Chandler's central claim of free-fall of the roof-line of WTC7 for roughly 2 seconds.

You quoted the relevant physics result, in fact:

"Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)"

That's precisely what Chandler showed in his analysis and precisely what his comment to NIST was about, the one that prompted NIST to include their graph showing the stages in their (updated) final report.

You obviously have a dislike for David Chandler, but that has no relevance whatsoever to the physics.

And whether Chandler might be wrong about something else has no relevance to his claim about a 2-second period of free-fall of WTC which is not in doubt and was the focus of my comments referencing Chandler's analysis.

You are clearly attempting to paint Chandler in a negative light as a way of avoiding the issue of the 2-sceond period of free fall of WTC7.

In case no one ever told you: in science, it's the evidence and argument that counts and not the person.





dhogaza said...

"Having once been obliged, in the interest of technical versimilitude, to crawl around the engineering spaces of a 757 from nose to tail, and spend a day or two pondering the beast's six inch thick looseleaf flight manual , I can testify that you have to go waaay outside the flight envelope to make the wings fall off."

On the other hand, a rudder kick in turbulence caused the plastic (I mean composite) vertical stabilizer of an airbus to break off a few days after 9/11 ... but I shouldn't really be feeding the fantasy should I? :)

EliRabett said...

Much of this sounds like an ad for Steve McIntyre, and indeed there is a scary similarity with Climate Audit in the comments about this. However, Eli prefers the John Droz analogy

metzomagic said...

Holy jaysus, my head nearly 'sploded there. Truthers infest Eli's. They are everywhere, even where by the wildest stretch of the imagination you couldn't possibly imagine they could be.

How is it that a statistically significant part of the (merrican, at least) population possesses a not statistically significant amount of critical thinking skills? FFS.

Anonymous said...

Eli: "Much of this sounds like an ad for Steve McIntyre, and indeed there is a scary similarity with Climate Audit in the comments about this. "

Comments like that (and similar ones by some others who, on the climate change issue, come across as actually interested in science) are surprising to me.

It is very curious that there is such a different treatment of the two issues by these folks and such a quick leap to equate those who question the official story on 911 with those who question the science of climate change.

There is a big difference between the extent to which the two issues have been studied and analyzed by mainstream scientists.

climate science is very well established and has been very extensively studied, analyzed and reported on which is why people can have a relatively high degree of confidence in the "official story (from scientists, both governmental and independent)".

The events of 911 and its official (almost exclusively government) story, on the other hand, have undergone nowhere near the same amount of scrutiny by mainstream scientists and engineers, which leaves a large number of important questions unanswered. (not least of all because most of the evidence, structural steel and the like, was carted off and disposed of before anyone even had a chance to look at it.

Furthermore, the fact that there has been relatively little scrutiny of the official story (certainly much less than of climate) outside lone researchers and groups like Engineers and Architects for 911 Truth may not simply be an accident.

If the dismissive, condescending, insulting comments by Chomsky (and Eli and some others here) are an indication of the response that a scientist can expect when he or she raises a question about the official story (about the dynamics of the collapse of WTC7, for example) should it really be surprising that scientists might be reluctant to even ask such questions?

If nothing else, this thread has been very revealing.

Brian said...

I wonder if Truthers age out, just like scientists who can't accept new ideas. Current college age radicals barely remember 9-11 and soon it will just be something college kids read about. Maybe that'll start ending it.

Re Mr. John Droz, he made a bit of a mistake at the link saying "his business as a real estate broker is 'a hobby, primarily for a tax deduction.'" The IRS is very clear that you deduct expenses for businesses and not for hobbies, and that it's aware of people pretending their hobbies are businesses. He doesn't sound like a careful thinker.

Lionel A said...

dhogaza

"And why would there be a problem? There is no logical reason for there being one ... as long as you stay below Mach speed, you'll be fine, as long as you don't run into anything (tall buildings come to mind)."

That is just the point, the records from the NTSB indicate that aircraft that day went outside of their Mach speed capability. Or did you miss those bits and the comparison with Egypt Air 990?

Of course the simulator run was not a structural integrity check out through the flight regime necessary for the aircraft that day. But there was more than just the simulator in those video's.

Consider what happens to aerofoil and control surfaces whilst transiting the transonic range. The early days of jet flight testing are full incident of control reversal and pilot induced pitch oscillation. There is also the issue of shock-wave control. Why did many Mach 1+ jets have such a high degree of sweep back?

There are other methods of limiting the onset of compressibility but the B7x7 series do not have that and their wing sweep is modest.

Besides, you might like to look at why large front spool turbofan engines are unsuited to transonic region flying within which are the speeds under discussion.

Special, often adjustable, intake arrangements are required to tailor the shock-wave to act as an intake air velocity reducer otherwise the engine will surge and maybe self destruct internally. There is also the issue of the type of engine mounting to consider - not conducive to flight above the limiting Mach number in 7x7 series.

Russell's statement appears nothing less than an 'argument from incredulity'.

Has Russell any experience with the design factors required to be confronted for flight in the transonic range?

You may be surprised to learn that even below aircraft Mach 1 sections of the aircraft can be exceeding Mach 1 and unless designed in profile and stressed for that regime then the sudden increase in loading at that point can go way over their design safety factors.

But then just as McIntyre has no formal education or experience in aspects of climatology it appears that applies to you WRT aviation, and it shows.

dhogaza said...

Lionel A:

"That is just the point, the records from the NTSB indicate that aircraft that day went outside of their Mach speed capability."

No, the simulator test stayed within the airframe's Mach speed capability of around Mach 0.86. Radar records show the two jets going slower than that.

I did not miss the reference to Egypt Air 900, which may've reached Mach 1 before breaking up. If not, very close to it.

"Of course the simulator run was not a structural integrity check out through the flight regime necessary for the aircraft that day."

Wrong. Structural integrity is modeled by simulators, the speed was within the airframe Mach speed design limitations, etc etc.

"Consider what happens to aerofoil and control surfaces whilst transiting the transonic range."

The speeds claimed for the 9/11 jets were not within the transonic range, but less than Mach 0.9.

"You may be surprised to learn that even below aircraft Mach 1 sections of the aircraft can be exceeding Mach 1 and unless designed in profile and stressed for that regime then the sudden increase in loading at that point can go way over their design safety factors."

I'm not the least bit surprised. On the other hand, I fly frequently in jet airliners that are designed to operate routinely in the Mach 0.8+ range and they are designed to avoid such problems. While exceeding airframe restrictions such as the 767s Mach 0.86 limit will start damaging the aircraft, remember that safe flying at Mach 0.86 doesn't magically transform into aircraft destruction at Mach 0.87. You start causing increasing amounts of stress and damage as you exceed the operating envelope, but destruction of the airframe doesn't happen until you get very close to Mach 1.

"But then just as McIntyre has no formal education or experience in aspects of climatology it appears that applies to you WRT aviation, and it shows."

I don't need a formal education in aviation to know that 500+ knots is not Mach 1+ or even transonic.

What I do have, which you seem to lack, is a critical mind coupled with reading compression skills.

dhogaza said...

metzomagic:

"How is it that a statistically significant part of the (merrican, at least) population..."

Our local pet truther Lionel A. is not merrican, judging from his liberal use of "whilst", etc.

Anonymous said...

Brian says "I wonder if Truthers age out, just like scientists who can't accept new ideas."


What are the new ideas that can't be accepted in the case of 911?

How about a 2-second period of free-fall for the top of WTC7 along with its necessary ramifications (total absence of structural resistance and proximate cause) that necessarily follow from energy conservation?

And who (especially commenting here) are the scientists who can't accept the ideas?

Martin Vermeer said...

In this whole scuffle I see that the original, sensible and simple question by Chomsky has disappeared underfoot: there is no shortage of academic journals in the world, and they are not all under black-helicopter control. If Chandler's ideas held water, surely some journal with a reputation to lose, somewhere, anywhere, would be willing to stick its neck out? Why hasn't he tried to submit his ideas to peer review? (Or has he? Hmm.)

Call me prejudiced, but if you want me to read about Chandler's physics, hand it to me on the pages of a somewhat serious journal. Life's just too short.

Anonymous said...

"If Chandler's ideas held water,"

Martin, you obviously have not taken any time at all to even read the NIST report, so I'm not sure why anyone should pay any attention to what you have to say (If fact, I'm sure they should not. Life's too short, as you say)

If you had read the NIST report (or even the relevant part that Eli quoted above), you would be aware that Chandler's "idea" that the roof-line of WTC7 experienced free-fall acceleration for roughly 2 seconds is not conjecture or wild ass conspiracy theory but a FACT that can be readily be deduced from available video (as was done by Chandler and then NIST after he pointed it out to them)

NIST even put that fact into their report, but only after Chandler had pointed it out to them (though they never explained its ramifications).

Please at least educated yourself minimally before you say another word because so far, what you have said is simply vacuous.

Anonymous said...

Oops, typo: "Please at least educate yourself"

(lest someone make a stupid comment about it)

dhogaza said...

"you would be aware that Chandler's "idea" that the roof-line of WTC7 experienced free-fall acceleration for roughly 2 seconds is not conjecture or wild ass conspiracy theory but a FACT"

Facts are frequently woven into wild-ass conspiracy theories. So what?

Where are the conspirators? Without conspirators, there can be no conspiracy ...

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

Brian said...

One partial disagreement I have with Chomsky is that these denialists put huge amounts of time into their conspiracy theories - where he's right is that they don't put that time into formal training. They even educate themselves in a way, but only towards an end, whatever proves their belief correct.

At the water district we've had people coming to us for years to tell us how horrible fluoridation is. With all the effort they've put in, they could've gone and obtained a master's in toxicology (and unlike Chandler be current on theory and involved in research publication).

I've told them that we're the wrong people to be working on persuading - they should be trying to persuade experts. IOW, what Chomky's saying.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Discoveries are what the experts missed. Chomsky is right about the denialati and the conspiracists, but completely wrong about the experts.

Look at the mess the 'experts' got us in. Humanity is a serious cockup. It's going to take more than a few discoveries to get us out of this mess, and the experts won't be making any of those discoveries.

Russell Seitz said...

Lionel A asks:

Russell's statement appears nothing less than an 'argument from incredulity'.

Has Russell any experience with the design factors required to be confronted for flight in the transonic range?


Having attended NASA Advanced Structures Research Advisory Committee meetings assisted in its investigation of the Columbia crack up, and been pummelled by Concorde engine exhaust, the answer is a reluctant yes.

Now go read the goddam flight manual.



Martin Vermeer said...

Anonymous, you didn't need to again re-iterate that you don't have an answer to Chomsky's simple, sensible question. That much was clear all the time.

Anonymous said...

In answer to the "How can it freefall for 2 seconds?", your mistake may be in asserting the structural strength of the building AS DESIGNED.

What, for example, would happen if someone designed it to withstand a laden jumbo jet, then some executive decided that that was STUPID overengineering and cut the materials used at time of build to something cheaper and less sturdy?

Massive bonus for coming in under the bid price, massive bonus for completing early, massive bonus for finishing under budget.

And, really, who flies planes into buildings?!?!? What they do is take hostages, fly to Cuba, get a few terrorist mates released from prison and everyone goes home. Why remove all those hostages and the leverage?

Nah, nobody needs a building built for that sort of catastrophe.

Oh.

What?

F...!

We can't let this get out. We'd better ask our mate in the Whitehouse to collect all the bits do that the substitution isn't found out.

I didn't kill those people.

But the public would crucify us and make out we did.

Best keep it quiet and we can get the REAL culprits: the terrorists.

So it collapsed in a way that is not possible for a building built to spec because it was not built to spec.

There was no conspiracy to kill people for political purposes. Nobody thought this would happen in the least.

No pre-meditation.

Just avoiding what seems to them to be an honest mistake from seeing them and the company torn to literal shreds by an outraged public, which would not turn back the clock and would let the terrorists who killed to do this again.

Lionel A said...

Russell

"Now go read the goddam flight manual."

OK I think what you are all missing here is what my argument is about and that is the Mach limiting speed at sea level, well at around 1000ft.

Find a 'Flight Envelope' diagram and see what I mean.

Egypt Air was simply used as a means of teasing out flight speeds at break up.

Even Concorde's Mach limiting speed at the altitude under discussion may surprise you. Sure you can cruise at around Mach 7 or something at normal cruising alt' in a 7x7 but air is much, much thicker at low altitude and given to having bumps which can cause stresses.

This is what the USN discovered when they tried operating the A5 Vigilante at low level, crews suffered eyeball trouble from the shaking. I got this from a TP operating out of Patuxant (Pax River as it was known).

EliRabett said...

Somewhat irrelevant if your this life expectancy is about 2 seconds.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Sure you can cruise at around Mach 7 or something at normal cruising alt' in a 7x7

I would think that in a Concorde or a 7X7 cruising at mach 7 then your life expectancy would indeed be about two seconds. Probably less.

EliRabett said...

Where to take it

Lawyers Guns and Money is discussing the fact that the WTC was taken down by min-nukes buried in the basement
----------------------
However, the fact that there is less evidence for nuclear explosions at the WTC than there is of Elvis living underwater in Loch Ness makes no odds to the liars and shills who cover for Israel’s central role in 9/11. The “WTC was nuked” disinformation is being propagated by Zionist agents whose job is to portray 9/11 truth advocates as slack-brained, knuckle-dragging, scientifically illiterate, paranoid buffoons.
----------------------

Now Eli would not go quite so far, but the charm is losing its luster.

dhogaza said...

"OK I think what you are all missing here is what my argument is about and that is the Mach limiting speed at sea level, well at around 1000ft."

No, we understand that you don't know what you're talking about. We're not missing anything.

Speed of sound is HIGHER at low elevation than at altitude, not lower, for starters.

"This is what the USN discovered when they tried operating the A5 Vigilante at low level, crews suffered eyeball trouble from the shaking."

No one is claiming that running into a building at 500+ knots with a 767 is a comfortable ride. Just not an impossible ride.

As Eli says, you're getting boring.

Anonymous said...

Conspiracy theories are at their root, stupid. Some knucklehead gets in their head "X couldn't happen" then constructs elaborate explanations for "what really happened" rather than just reconsider "maybe what I thought I knew about X is wrong".

I know David Chandler. David Chandler is a friend of mine. David S. Chandler is no David Chandler. (Sorry, being a theoretical physical chemist, I couldn't resist.)

Rib Smokin' bunny

Anonymous said...

Rib Smokin Bunny thinks "Conspiracy theories are at their root, stupid"

So, presumably, that means you believe that the "official" US government theory about 911 (that the attack was the result of a conspiracy) is stupid, right? :)

Do you have any inkling at all what the word "conspiracy" means?

It would appear not.

You have obviously tried to impress us (with your credentials), but you seem to have failed miserably (with your sweeping comment about conspiracy theories)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous makes an argument by its definition, ignoring my explicit definition of what I meant by conspiracy theory.

Yeah, that showed me!

Rib Smokin' Bunny

Anonymous said...

Rib,

You're obviously no David Chandler either ("S" or no S) :)

Russell Seitz said...

Sorry anon-- we're in deep denia about the conspiracy to discredit Heaven's Gate by flying Comet ISON in past the termination shock of the solar wind.

Anonymous said...

While some obviously find attacking David Chandler to be great sport, it is completely irrelevant to the dynamics of the collapse of WTC7 (including the 2 second free fall).

Anonymous said...

"In answer to the "How can it freefall for 2 seconds?", your mistake may be in asserting the structural strength of the building AS DESIGNED."

There was no “mistake” because there was no assertion, nor is it necessary to assumeanything about the strength of the structural elements of the building to measure it’s free-fall or deduce what that means.

The author of that comment obviously does not fully appreciate what "free-fall" means/implies (particularly in this context).

It means that there is zero resistance to the gravity-driven downward motion (other than very minimal resistance from the air).

It means that all of the gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy (of downward motion.)

It means that none of the gravitational potential energy is going into breaking and bending of structural elements (because it all appears as energy of motion)

The latter, in turn, means that all of the breaking, bending and "clearing" of lower-level structural elements (columns, beams, trusses, concrete floors, etc), effective "removal" of the underlying support structure, must take place previous to the free-fall. Otherwise, it would act to impede the motion and thereby prevent "free-fall" of the upper part of the building from occurring.

The entire 100meter roof-line of WTC7 uniformly and suddenly started "falling" and kept "falling" for roughly 2 seconds, precisely the same as a rock would fall that was dropped from the same starting height.

That is not simply a matter of part of the building (8 stories) having "less structural strength than the design strength."

It's a matter of it having zero (!) structural strength. Technically, "0" is "less than the design strength,” but that's clearly not what was intended by that comment.

In fact, it actually means even more than that. Because the roof line fell for 2+ seconds virtually unimpeded by anything below, there cannot have been any part of the structure "in the pathway" during the free-fall period. It must have been “removed” before there-falling parts of the building got there.
Had there been anything in the way (even a disconnected "tangle" or pile of columns, beams and floors, for example), it would have impeded the motion and prevented free-fall of the upper part of the building.

Anyone who is not "bothered" by the 2+ second free-fall of the top of WTC7, or even is under the impression that it somehow needs no explanation (that it is somehow just "normal, expected behavior" when a steel frame high-rise has scattered office fires*) simply fails to grasp it's ramifications (which follow from very basic high school level physics.)

It's clear that some of those commenting here think it is more important to impress everyone with how smart they (or their chemistry friends) are and how dumb David Chandler is and how Chandler should have published in this or that journal, but guess what?

It makes absolutely no difference to the dynamics of free-fall dynamics of the building, which has been amply confirmed and documented, by NIST, among others). Anyone who wants to can confirm the 2 second free-fall of the upper part of WTC7 themselves simply by downloading the videos and doing some basic analysis. But you do have to know some very basic physics and have an interest in the physics, which seems to be lacking here.

dhogaza said...

"Anyone who is not "bothered" by the 2+ second free-fall of the top of WTC7, or even is under the impression that it somehow needs no explanation (that it is somehow just "normal, expected behavior" when a steel frame high-rise has scattered office fires*) simply fails to grasp it's ramifications (which follow from very basic high school level physics.)"

Therefore ... conspiracy!

We understand your religious beliefs and diehard devotion to them. We understand that nothing under the sun would convince you that there was no conspiracy. We understand that you've (obviously) invested a great deal of time reading "proofs" by the likes of Chandler.

It is about time for you to understand that normal rational people aren't going to be persuaded by your continued repetition of this one point regarding one two second period of time.

You've won, in your own mind. Why don't you take your ball home and quit playing? Obviously, you're the smartest kid in the room and the rest of us are cretins. Go smirk somewhere else, hopefully some place filled with a bunch of other self-satisfied truthers.

EliRabett said...

Will the current bunch of Anonimi please take numbers (An1 is already taken). The bunnies cannot tell you apart if your are.

EliRabett said...

And, oh yes, there was a bunch of claiming that the excellent physicist David Chandler told you so. As those of us who know David Chandler told one of you, David S is no David Chandler.

Anonymous said...

dhogaza: Thanks for being so upfront about the fact that you prefer "argument from incredulity" to "argument from physics".

Eli: the fact that you keep harping on David Chandler is really just pathetic.



Anonymous said...

Two cases for you. Ones I know and have seen.

Two buildings.

One a three-storey house where the joists for the first floor above the ground floor was not supported by any load bearing wall, but fell short and the shortfall was taken up by several pieces of five-ply (the gap was not much, but without that five-ply, the floor joists would have fallen without touching the sides.

Another house had a chimney breast and mantle that were supported by nothing more than the concrete holding the bricks together. There was no joist in the chimney to hold up the weight of the chimney itself on the supporting sides of the base.

Both only found out when a builder was brought in to do some reworking.

Both apparently fine for several years at least.

If there'd been a quake, however, would the buildings have withstood their designed limits?

Probably not.

And one of them would have collapsed straight down in freefall.

dhogaza said...

"dhogaza: Thanks for being so upfront about the fact that you prefer "argument from incredulity" to "argument from physics". "

The argument from incredulity here is the argument that WTC7 could not have collapsed as it did without controlled demolition, in support of one of several conspiracy theories.

Sorry, you don't understand what an argument from incredulity is.

Anonymous said...


Sorry, dhogaza, the arguments I have made above are physical ones (eg, about free-fall and the necessary conditions required for free-fall of the top part of a building for 2 seconds) , something you don't seem to want to address.

The 'arguments from incredulity' are indeed yours (see above)

"Why would the government conspirators bother with WTC 7, when the destruction of the two main buildings were surely sufficient to shock the nation. Indeed, the destruction of one of the two main buildings would've been sufficient."

Why would one build a conspiracy requiring the collaboration of a very large number of people, 100% of whom have remained silent for over a decade now, when a simple approach such as hiring some disgruntled middle easterners to fly airplanes into buildings would've clearly sufficed?

Nothing adds up ..."


First, your questions require making a lot of assumptions like ("collaboration of a very large number of people") which may or may not be true.

Second your "nothing adds up" is a clear statement of incredulity, based on little more than pure speculation based on the (evidence-less) assumptions you have made.

Arguments about motive are a waste of time without actual evidence (which is why I did not reply to any of your "questions" above before this)

I have no desire to get into completely vacuous back and forth about highly speculative matters.

Best to stick with the physics: the falling building.

But so far, you (and Eli and most of the others here) have avoided that like the plague.

Anonymous said...

Anon1 here. It is hard to understand the tenacity that "truthers", with zero evidence of any alternate explanations for what happened on 911, display on the Internets.

Here is just one piece of analysis that the 911 truthers can ignore and dismiss.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

1

Anonymous said...

Anon 1, I understand the tenacity more than I understand the psychological need this particular conspiracy satisfies. Is it to blame government in general or George W in particular? I am no fan of W, but to think WW, CIA, CIA (and that other agency which I can't mention because it is top sekrit) had any inkling that this would happen is nonsense.

About the David Chandler vs Davis S. Chandler business:

That's a joke, son. A flag waver. You're built too low. The fast ones go over your head. Ya got a hole in your glove. I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is.

Rib Smokin' bunny

dhogaza said...

"Sorry, dhogaza, the arguments I have made above are physical ones (eg, about free-fall and the necessary conditions required for free-fall of the top part of a building for 2 seconds) , something you don't seem to want to address.

The 'arguments from incredulity' are indeed yours (see above)"

One form of an argument from incredulity take the form:

"P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false."

In this case "P" is the statement "a 2-second period of freefall can result when a building is destroyed by impact and fire".

In your mind, "P" must be false, therefore some other mechanism - a controlled demolition - must be the cause.

This is a classic argument from incredulity, and the fact that you don't even understand what form such an argument takes is telling.

Now, regarding my comments which you quote above, there is no evidence for the existence of a conspiracy. Show me evidence of a conspiracy, and I might change my mind. Your argument, which boils down to "I can't believe that WTC7 fell naturally, therefore it didn't", is not evidence of a conspiracy. I can not deny evidence that doesn't exist. "There is no evidence of a conspiracy beyond those identified as being involved in the hijacking and flights of four airplanes, and those who paid them, therefore I don't believe there was such a conspiracy" is not an argument from incredulity. It is a refusal to go beyond the facts that are known into the realm of speculation, as you and every other truther on the planet does.

Anonymous said...

dhogaza

You obviously still don't appreciate the meaning of "free-fall" (with near perfect symmetry) for a building, I see.

But forgive me for repeating those words (again).



a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonytroll #n, where n is a number yet to be defined:

We get that free fall means that the structural support of the upper floors of the building had failed. Honest. At issue is whether there might be some other mechanism for that than intentional demolition--perhaps combustion of a whole helluva lot of jet fuel in a short period of time, along with all the other combustibles on the scent.

Fixating on a single fact is not a brilliant investigative technique. It's the sign of a crank.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. You've made an exceptional claim on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

dhogaza said...

"You obviously still don't appreciate the meaning of "free-fall" (with near perfect symmetry) for a building, I see."

Yeah, right, dipshit. Sure.

Foot-stomping, repetitive, broken-record, boring truther. Joy.

dhogaza said...

"You obviously still don't appreciate the meaning of "free-fall" (with near perfect symmetry) for a building, I see."

I will credit you with a wonderfully succinct, textbook-perfect, example of an argument from incredulity.

Now you know what one looks like. Excellent. You've learned something.

Anonymous said...

RSB,

Am I detecting a little Foghorn Leghorn in your last post?

"Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is."

1

Anonymous said...

I actually sent the comment with html-like tags for Foghorn Leghorn, and the software did something with them besides printing them.

As for 911 truthers : "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Sir Winston Churchill

Rib Smokin' bunny (just et some!)

Fergus Brown said...

From entirely outside the argument, though I did watch events unfold in real-time on the day, I am fast reaching the conclusion that a conspiracy does exist. Certain agencies are clearly 'feeding' CT sites to encourage people to look away from the actual deficiencies revealed in the fact of the attack's occurrence. These unfortunate people are the victims of manipulation and disinformation by shadowy agencies who wish to avoid the recognition that they can, at times, be quite incompetent. BTW, I know of at least one 'conspiracy' of the kind otherwise imagined which looks somewhat more substantive than this rubbish; there are overtones of flight 93 in there too...

Anonymous said...

Anon101-aye (new nom)

"Anyone who is not "bothered" by the 2+ second free-fall of the top of WTC7, or even is under the impression that it somehow needs no explanation (that it is somehow just "normal, expected behavior" when a steel frame high-rise has scattered office fires*) simply fails to grasp it's ramifications (which follow from very basic high school level physics.)"

"Therefore ... conspiracy!

We understand your religious beliefs and diehard devotion to them. We understand that nothing under the sun would convince you that there was no conspiracy"

Do you know what isn't helping you here?

You ignore completely that the quoted item you picked out is true.

Instead you prefer to ridicule the conspiracy theory used to explain it.

Fine: the conspiracy of an inside CIA job blowing up WTC *IS* ridiculous.

But what you aren't doing IN THE LEAST is addressing why the discrepancy, even though you do not disagree that there IS a discrepancy.

Give it a go, guys, deal with the discrepancies pointed out.

"Discrepancy... Therefore Conspiracy!" does nothing but put you in the same looney bin as the ones you're making fun out of.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here.

"At issue is whether there might be some other mechanism for that than intentional demolition--perhaps combustion of a whole helluva lot of jet fuel in a short period of time"

That was an early explanation of the failure.

However, even mild steel would not be sufficiently softened by the very low temperature of combustion of aerofuels.

Fire retardants should have kept the combustion of harder-to-combust but thereby hotter-when burning materials for at least half an hour.

What you're doing here IS NO DIFFERENT from an AGW denier going "But what if it's the sun getting hotter?" or "What if it's the UHI effect?".

ALREADY BEEN CHECKED YOU MORONS!!!

Is the right response to a denier bringing up those zombie arguments, right?

Well it's the same response to that alternative hypothesis for the loss of structural integrity.

Indeed it is your intransigence on thinking "it's gotta be that fuel burning, right?" which enables and exhorts the 911-ers to retain and even one-up their insistence on the conspiracy they feel is the answer: because the only hypothesis others come up with have been refuted ages ago.

dhogaza said...

"Do you know what isn't helping you here?

You ignore completely that the quoted item you picked out is true."

Continued, repetitive arguing from incredulity isn't going to convince anyone here, sorry.

Even when combined with personal attacks on our intelligence, level of knowledge blah blah blah.

Come back when you've got some conspirators in the dock so we can watch the trial on TV.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here.

Yeah, see, you're being an ignorant and militant moron here, dhogaza.

Something you whine and bitch and moan about and take great delight in fluffing your self opinion with in others, but, oddly, blind to your own engagement in refusal to face facts.

"Come back when you've got some conspirators in the dock" and your "You're just a tinfoil hatter" bullshitting blather is rather hilarious in a post-Snowden world.

The 911-ers are 100% right in calling you a credulous moron.

Lionel A said...

dhogaza

“Speed of sound is HIGHER at low elevation than at altitude, not lower, for starters.'”

Where have I indicated anything else?

What I am trying to get acknowledged is that aircraft of the commercial jet type such as a 767 are not designed for flying at much above Mach 0.7 at about 1000ft.

Yes, Thomas Lee Elfritz that Mach 7 was an unfortunate typo from having little feeling in my fingers and not noticing the failure of the '.' to appear. I am happy for you that you are so pleased with yourself about catching me out.

TLE Did you really consider that I would think that a 767 would be able to compete with an SR71 at Mach 3+ or approach the speeds of an X15, and then these were designed as high altitude birds?

The problems aircraft have is with the sudden rise in drag coefficient above about Mach 0.7 near sea level with the onset of shock stall. With that comes all manner of control and structural problems including a sudden change of trim, ineffectiveness of controls, control reversal especial lateral due to airframe distortion, buffeting, aileron vibration, pitching and yawing oscillations and Dutch roll.

I have seen Sea Vixen crews return white faced when Auto-Stab failed at full chat on the deck.

Shock stall can come on suddenly with small change in aircraft speed and rise rapidly

Now I don't have a 767 'six inch thick looseleaf flight manual' to consult Russell (not as if I can come across those every day) but is not a 400% margin of safety rather over-the-top for a weight conscious operator where extra weight means more fuel burn? Were they expecting to have to dog-fight 'Foxbats' or something?

But on speed limitations I found the following helpful:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

So.

United Airlines Flight 175
Boeing 767-222 N612UA
The plane's serial number is 21873 and is powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D Series engines.

767-222 serials 21862-21880
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

Equivalent airspeed is defined as the speed at sea level that would produce the same dynamic pressure as the true airspeed at the altitude the vehicle is flying at.

Mach 1 at 22000 ft ISA (temp) is 608.72 knots
Mach .99 22000 ft ISA (temp) is 602.63 knots
Mach .86 at 22000 ft ISA (temp) is 522 knots

TAS 522 knots @ 22000 ft, -29 C EAS is 369 knots. Mach 0.86
TAS 522 knots @ 1000 ft, 13 C EAS is 514 knots Mach 0.79


VMO = 360 KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed is in practice at subsonic speeds over 200 mph close to IAS values but with Bernoulli compression compensation applied)

Vmo for a 767 is stated for a reason, to expect one to do 360KAS + 154 knots is a big ask.

Argh! Had to split.

Lionel A said...

The split bit:

You may like to consider Concorde's Vmo at 1000 ft which, according the the performance chart I have here (from Orlebar 'The Concorde Story'), is close to 320knots IAS. Now am I expected to believe that a 767 can better that by much?

It can be surprising for those who have not looked into this aspect that Concorde at 55000ft, -56C with a 500 CAS has a TAS of 1201 knots Mach 2.09 which is Mach 0.05 over its normal operating Mach number of 2.04.

Now you can work out all the above stuff using formulae or from this online calculator:

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#TrueAirspeed

or deduce similar from the charts here:

http://www.tscm.com/mach-as.pdf

But that is not all. Turbofans of the type fitted to Fl175 P&W J9D, have a forward limiting speed due to incorporating the blade tip rotational speed to the a/c forward speed to arrive at the tip speed limits below a/c sonic speeds. I am not aware of any variable pitch in this department. Thus in the region above 0.7 Mach efficiency begins to fall off rapidly up to about Mach 0.85 where the efficiency curves I have seen for this type end (Gunston). Hence Mach .86 is asking a bit much and .99 is most assuredly asking for trouble as Egypt Air 990 shows.

But of course with qualifications in aeronautics plus decades of experience I know nothing, silly me.

As for the flippant '2 seconds to live' quip Eli, well done for missing the big one. By that time the aircraft would have become groups of bits flying in close formation and not likely to hit anything aimed at.

EliRabett said...

Well, obviously what everyone needs is Denial Death Match. Pit the Anti-Vaxxers against the 9-11 Truthers, those in Climate Change Denial against the Birthers, and more. There could be a web site where they are exiled to and can go at one another.

OTOH, they might all be the same three people with a bunch of handles:)

EliRabett said...

Oh hell, let Eli play. There are cases where commercial airliners have gone supersonic in dives. Best known case is a DC-8 in testing. They did not break up.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Quite honestly, I have more important things to think about than to think about what you think about. This is occasional brief entertainment for me. But I do see a conspiracy at the root of 911, a conspiracy of stupidity to either not recognize the danger or not doing anything about the danger of neglecting to reinforce and lock cockpit doors on large airliners.

That's looking more and more to be a multi trillion dollar mistake that could have been completely avoided for a couple of thousand bucks and a few hours at most. But even then, like Vietnam, they would have thought of something else to start or provoke yet another unnecessary and useless war with an insignificant country.

Anonymous said...

Anon101-a here:

"Well, obviously what everyone needs is Denial Death Match. Pit the Anti-Vaxxers against the 9-11 Truthers, those in Climate Change Denial against the Birthers, and more"

The bunny thinks that they aren't in that mosh pit with the others?

That's denial.

You deny any problems with the official statements. Deny any abnormality in the procedures exist. Deny that the post-mortem of 11/9 was done, if not with criminal negligence, then deliberate intent to pervert the course.

Turns up in the damndest places, does denial...

You enjoy the sport too much to bother thinking outside the box of "TROOFERBAITING"

Let the Rabbit run free, Eli.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here.

"That's looking more and more to be a multi trillion dollar mistake"

No, the 11/9 event can be laid as a mistake on cockpit doors.

The trillions of dollars spent isn't a mistake. At least not due to the events of 11/9.

Blame your politicians for that, not cockpit doors.

Lionel A said...

Ah! Yes! The legendary Bill Magruder, of whom I am aware, also that he accompanied Brian Trubshaw on flights during Concorde development.

Reasonable article on that flight here:

http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/I-Was-There-Boeing-Will-Never-Try-It.html


Note this section:

"RHE: They had to determine the pushover load factor, the dive angle, to be sure they got to Mach 1.01 at a rather high altitude, so the airspeed wouldn’t be that high up there. [The speed of sound at altitude] is not 700 miles per hour: it’s a lot less."

As suggested above the altitude at Mach 1.01 was 41Kft and not 1K.

Besides that DC8-43 was fitted with large diameter turbofans I suppose.

It is amazing how people try to keep walking around a room not seeing the elephant.

dhogaza said...

"The problems aircraft have is with the sudden rise in drag coefficient above about Mach 0.7 near sea level with the onset of shock stall. With that comes all manner of control and structural problems including a sudden change of trim, ineffectiveness of controls, control reversal especial lateral due to airframe distortion, buffeting, aileron vibration, pitching and yawing oscillations and Dutch roll."

Yet one can successfully fly at greater than Mach 0.8 at low altitude in a 767 simulator.

Who do I believe, Boeing's engineers who developed the simulator, or some random truther on the internet?

Anonymous said...

"Who do I believe, Boeing's engineers who developed the simulator, or some random truther on the internet?"

They are part of the "conspiracy", it is the only "logical" explanation.

1

Anonymous said...

Folks like Chomsky like to (falsely) claim that "911 truth" research has not been published in peer reviewed journals (some of it has), completely oblivious to the fact that their sacred official "NIST Report" was never published in a peer reviewed journal!

They accept the official NIST "model" for World Trade Center building 7 collapse (progressive collapse from a single failure point) that has so many problems with it (inconsistencies with the facts) that it would be hilarious if its implications were not so serious.

Eli and many others obviously love to shout "Conspiracy Theorist!" (oblivious to the fact that they themselves subscribe to a conspiracy theory, the Officially sanction one) but if they were actually interested in science, they'd read what independent engineers and architects have to say about the collapse of building 7, for example.

Look at the analysis performed by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, for example (might start with "Deconstructing the NIST WTC 7 Building Report" on this page with links to some brief videos pointing out the glaring problems with the official (NIST) collapse Theory here)

Science is about finding the explanation for a phenomenon (collapse of World trade center building 7, for example) that is most consistent with all the available facts (forget speculation about possible motives, which are not relevant to analysis of the collapse)

NIST's model is founded upon false/misleading claims (about sheer studs, for example) and is simply not consistent with the facts, as explained by architects and engineers who have scrutinized NIST's work and the original building plans and pointed out fatal flaws, particularly in what NIST claimed as the initiation event for the collapse.

Having their errors pointed out to them has led NIST to issue "corrections", effectively saying "Oops, that original measurement that we gave for the girder width? That was a typographical mistake." (LOL!)

But the problem (for NIST) is, each new "corrections" leads to other serious inconsistencies in their story. (Houses of cards are harder to hold up than world trade center towers)

Those holding up the NIST theory of collapse of building 7 as THE DEFINITIVE SCIENTIFIC WORD on how building7 came down don't seem to have any clue what is in the actual report (and its errata).

Anonymous said...

I left out the word "seat" on the above NIST admission: "oops, that original measurement that we gave for the girder seat width?"

dhogaza said...

"Those holding up the NIST theory of collapse of building 7 as THE DEFINITIVE SCIENTIFIC WORD on how building7 came down don't seem to have any clue what is in the actual report (and its errata)."

And, AFAIK, no one here has held up the NIST report as being "THE DEFINITIVE SCIENTIFIC WORD".

The problem is, the potential existence of problems with the NIST report don't provide positive evidence for controlled demolition by unknown conspirators.

It's another form of argument from incredulity - "if there are problems with the NIST report - controlled demolition!".

"Having their errors pointed out to them has led NIST to issue "corrections", effectively saying "Oops, that original measurement that we gave for the girder width? That was a typographical mistake." (LOL!)"

LOLs at the possibility of a typo …

"I left out the word "seat" on the above NIST admission: "oops, that original measurement that we gave for the girder seat width?""

While making a typo.

(LOL!)

"Eli and many others obviously love to shout "Conspiracy Theorist!" (oblivious to the fact that they themselves subscribe to a conspiracy theory, the Officially sanction one)"

There is a difference between accepting the existence of a known conspiracy, with named conspirators whose actions are documented, and belief in a Conspiracy Theory built around unknown and unnamed conspirators who have somehow remained in hiding for 12+ years.

Well, there's a difference for those of us rooted in reality. YMMV.

Anonymous said...

Somehow, of all the folks commenting above I knew you would be the one to make a big deal of my omission.

... because that's what you do, latch onto anything you can make debating points with..

If you really can't see the difference between my own omission of a word from a blog post that I put together in ten minutes and what NIST calls a "typo" on a measurement that is absolutely critical to their entire collapse initiation argument (which they only corrected after others had pointed them out) in a multimillion dollar report, then there is no hope for you.

I'm still waiting for you to actually address some physics, but at this point, I won't hold my breath.




Anonymous said...

..and I'm starting to appreciate what David Chandler meant when he said that it is a very bad idea to debate physics with folks who don't know any.

Anonymous said...

The reality is that there is much more evidence for the theory of controlled demolition of WTC7 (highly symmetrical and complete collapse of a steel frame building onto it's footprint, which prior to 9/11/2001, had never before resulted from fire) than there is for NIST's "single point initiation progressive collapse" story, which depends on a highly contrived scenario that would not even produce the observed dynamics even if it had somehow managed to begin.

But to appreciate that, one has to actually understand some physics (what "free-fall" means for a building, for example).


(and despite the offhand dismissal by NIST and others) there were many reports (by firefighters and others) of explosions in WTC7 before it came down. Denying their reality does not make them go away, any more than denying the reality of a conspiracy involving said controlled demolition rules out that possibility.


Russell Seitz said...

As a public service, anon shoud devote his considerable energies to persuading the Vaxxers that CO2 causes autism.

Susan Anderson said...

Vaxxie, waxy, taxi, turvey ...

Anonymous said...

Russell's physics arguments are almost (but not quite) as devastatingly convincing as Eli's.

Powerful stuff.

Anonymous said...

WTC7 did not fall in its own footprint.
Again I point you to this which is far more convincing than the hand waving the unnumbered anon is providing.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

And great pics at:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

1

Anonymous said...

"Lionel A", the individual who speaks of "flight paths and speeds for the aircraft concerned that day" should be wary of whom he consorts with. The pilots associated with "9/11 Truth" have been proven time and time again to have a most questionable and weak understanding of not only the aerodynamics of events of that day, but also the performance characteristics and airworthiness of the type aircraft involved. In short, they appear to be either fakes or if they are airmen, they have very little experience.

The aircraft used that day as flying bombs are very capable of the speeds involved, and with the highly-technical flight controls and systems in the upper 7X7-class Boeing aircraft, quite controllable by even the most novice of pilots.

Tristan from Maine

EliRabett said...

Lest anyone think Lionel and Anon are unduly, well, off their rockers, consider the anti-vax fest at the New Republic. 3663 comments and counting

They are just what passes today as normally so

Anonymous said...

Another powerful physics argument, Eli.

So far, you and others have completely (conveniently) avoided the central issue of how a gravity-driven collapse of WTC7 (as claimed by NIST) could alone (supposedly) lead to the observed free-fall acceleration of the upper section of the building.

You apparently don't see any "issue" with the claim that the upper part of a building can just literally "fall" through the lower part (with no resistance) as the result of nothing more than gravity-driven collapse of the lower part.

But the latter (gravity collapse of the lower part) must necessarily take place at less than free-fall acceleration, since some of the gravitational potential energy has to go into breaking, bending and crushing the lower structure.

Still don't see any problem?

How can the upper section experience free-fall (gravitational) acceleration when the lower section (that is being resisted from below ) must necessarily experience less than gravitational acceleration?

And you call me "off my rocker"?

Wow. This is high school physics we're talking about here.

I don't know about you, but when I took high school (PSSC) physics what we learned implied that buildings could not just fall through themselves with zero resistance.

But you're older than i am so maybe I learned the "new physics."

or maybe buildings had zero strength and zero density back when you took high school physics.

dhogaza said...

"So far, you and others have completely (conveniently) avoided the central issue of how a gravity-driven collapse of WTC7 (as claimed by NIST) could alone (supposedly) lead to the observed free-fall acceleration of the upper section of the building."

You mean the observed free-fall period of 2 seconds wasn't caused by gravity?

What was pushing it down, then, if gravity wasn't attracting it to the earth's center? Space aliens farting in our general direction?

dhogaza said...

"How can the upper section experience free-fall (gravitational) acceleration when the lower section (that is being resisted from below ) must necessarily experience less than gravitational acceleration? "

The same way it would if the building had been subjected to controlled demolition, silly.

You must be a terrible boor at parties.

Martin Vermeer said...

"High school physics", anonymous? Wow.

What stops you from submitting it to some construction-engineering journal? If you are correct, review should come back with "lack of novelty". Right? If that happens, I promise I'll read your article ;-)

bill said...

Listen, don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it... Basil Fawlty.

I'm going to interrupt the to-and-froings to pointout the sheer Chutzpah of managing to caption the original video 'Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7 '!

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Still don't see any problem?"


I see lots of problems. One is the great implausability of the conspiracy you propose.

It's as unlikely as the rubble from the WTC being buried without post-mortem investigation to see how the next skyscrapers can be built better was done because LGM told them to do so or face extradition to Rigel IX for War Crimes against aliens at the incident at Roswell.

However, the fact of the rubble not being investigated AS IS STANDARD PROCEDURE and has had no explanation of why it was skipped still exists, even though the conspiracy above is ridiculous.

By insisting on your conspiracy being given serious consideration, you're destroying the value of what you do have: facts inconvenient to the official explanation.

The hidden testing of diseases on the black americans in the recent past of the USA shows that people in power WILL risk the health and wellbeing of their citizens.

However, remember this: those in power were not black americans. Therefore the ones at risk were "not really us". Moreover, there was no DELIBERATE intent to single people out for termination. "acceptable losses" doesn't apply to 11/9 in your theory like it did to the testing of drugs, because the former was deliberate murder, whereas the latter was deliberate risk of harm, but, moreover, to a segment of society that, at the time, was considered less human than the WASPs making these decisions.

Anonymous said...

anon-101a here.

"As a public service, anon shoud devote his considerable energies to persuading the Vaxxers that CO2 causes autism."

How would the public be serviced by this, Russ? Because the only method I can see for this to happen is if you're a nutbar.

Of course, if you were being abusively ironic to the anons with a theory you don't like, then there appears to be a psychopathy working here that you feel so very angry at the assertion that you must make such asinine statements in ridicule of the statement.

If the theory were as errantly wrong as you assert, there is no need for such bile.

Is the problem that you think people may decide that if there is any, even the tiniest shred, of truth to the conspiracy, that they would tear down the government for the merest fraction of deliberate murder of US citizens in 11/9?

Well, wouldn't that be a reason to cover up any and all evidence of what happened, even if it were mostly benign, but open to accusation of the powerful?

And wouldn't that mean that the official version ACTUALLY IS fiction? Even though that isn't saying that the conspiracy levelled here is right and that it was deliberate planned destruction, that the facts would be hidden, the truths confined behind a wall of lies, and the events not as you've been led to believe?

After all, if the fear you have is that even a hint of culpability for the USG for the incident is so dangerous as to deserve vitriolic hate like you heap on it here, wouldn't those involved have justification for lying their asses off?

Anonymous said...

Anon101-a here:

"The reality is that there is much more evidence for the theory of controlled demolition of WTC7 (highly symmetrical and complete collapse of a steel frame building onto it's footprint, which prior to 9/11/2001, had never before resulted from fire) than there is for NIST's "single point initiation progressive collapse" story, which depends on a highly contrived scenario that would not even produce the observed dynamics even if it had somehow managed to begin."

True.

This doesn't make it true that the 11/9 event was a controlled demolition charge, however.

Just that the official version is almost definitely a lie.

If you keep looking for the answer you've pre-determined to be the one, you'll never find out what DID happen, beause you'll pass it bye.

Just like those here who ridicule you are doing: they "know it isn't a lie" and therefore they ignore anything that indicates lying happened.

Anonymous said...

Martin:

If it sounds extremely simple, that is because it is.

The gravity driven collapse of a building can simply not take place at free-fall acceleration (not even for one part of the building for a certain period of time)


It's physically impossible because it would violate energy conservation (which some of us physicists actually believe in)

In a gravity-driven collapse, at least some of the gravitational potential energy must go to bending, crushing, breaking the building below meaning it is unavailable to be converted to kinetic energy of downward motion of the building elements, meaning the collapse must take place at less than gravitational acceleration.

But the top of WTC7 actually DID undergo free-fall (for about 2 seconds). This has been amply confirmed from measurements on available video and not even NIST is debating this (they tacitly admitted as much by including a graph in their report with "free-fall" stage)

This means the collapse was not solely gravity driven. It involved an additional energy source (to destroy parts of the building).

Though they never actually addressed the free-fall period, NIST claims the building collapse (which includes the free-fall period) resulted from gravity-driven collapse initiating in a lower part of the building (starting at a single point, in fact, but that's really not important to the argument here).

But what NIST claims was a gravity driven collapse (which includes the free-fall period) is simply unphysical because it would violate energy conservation. Gravity driven collapse could not have produced a free-fall period - period.

Free-fall acceleration of any part of a building for any period of time requires an energy source in addition to gravity (and with a steel frame structure with concrete floors that source has to be a considerable one at that) to do the breaking, bending, vaporization and physical "removal" of the underlying structure so that the overlying part of the building is "free" to fall.

This does not take an article in a structural engineering to explain.

It's very simple physics (nothing more than the conservation of energy, knowing that free-fall involves conversion of ALL the available gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy and that energy is required to break up the structure of a collapsing building)

I won't bore you any longer with my repetition of high school physics.

I was (was) under the impression that at least some of the folks visiting this site (at least some of those who actually know some basic physics, which definitely restricts the group here) would get this basic point (even if they had never really thought about it before) but I may have been mistaken about this impression.

Anonymous said...

Incidentally, just so it is clear, when I say above that "The gravity driven collapse of a building can simply not take place at free-fall acceleration (not even for one part of the building for a certain period of time)" I am not referring to individual pieces of a building that have broken off and gone into free fall independent of the rest of the building.

In the case of WTC7, the upper part of the building fell "through" the lower part, which resisted the downward motion.

Lionel A said...

Tristan from Maine

“The aircraft used that day as flying bombs are very capable of the speeds involved, and with the highly-technical flight controls and systems in the upper 7X7-class Boeing aircraft, quite controllable by even the most novice of pilots.”

7x7 aircraft are rated at Mach 0.8, + a bit depending on type, at normal cruising altitude.

What they cannot do is much above 350KIAS, precise values once again depending on aircraft type, at 1000ft without an overspeed warning and klaxons sounding. Persist for too long in this condition and break up is unavoidable and loss of control for reasons stated above. That is in the numbers and the aerodynamics of the type, numbers which I have provided from official sources. I suggest you go back and look at them again and where they came from.

You may also like to consider the case of the Blackburn Buccaneer which was designed with an area rule airframe to delay the onset of the that drag coefficient spike. Also the wings had comparatively small span and thickness/chord ratio for its intended role with high transonic speed at low altitude. A Buccaneer flying at high altitude was decidedly 'wobbly'.

The F4 Phantom also had an area rule fuselage even though it was of course capable of Mach 2.

Thus any 7x7, go and try it somewhere, is decidedly unsuitable for high transonic speeds at low level.

That is the way it is and if you don't like then it is you that is demonstrating ignorance and not I that is off my rocker Eli. DC8s doing Mach1.10 at 41Kft are a completely different ball game and if you had read the other reports at your source you would realise that some airframe damage under these conditions is the most likely outcome. Bill Magruder happened to be a very experienced TP and in quite a different class to a regular airline pilot let alone newbies in the cockpit.

Here is an idea. Instead of continuing your condescending attitudes why don't you just go do some research in this area and stop picking cherries like Mach DC8s at 41Kft.

Anonymous said...

"This doesn't make it true that the 11/9 event was a controlled demolition charge, however."


When you look at all the evidence together, of course it does not "prove" controlled demolition, but lets just say it is very highly suggestive.

The video alone is pretty damning circumstantial evidence in that regard (as noted by several CD experts)

Even NIST basically dismissed melting steel from fire or an explosive source (like gas) as a plausible cause of the collapse, so if you also rule out gravity driven collapse (a la NIST), what's left?


But all folks like Architects and Engineers for 911 truth are asking for is a legitimate scientific forensic investigation of what happened.

Unfortunately, from the rabid response i have seen here (even from some who claim to be scientists), that ain't going to happen any time soon.

This thread is a perfect example of why many scientists and engineers simply remain quiet about the issue.

Anonymous said...

"I see lots of problems. One is the great implausability of the conspiracy you propose."

I have not proposed a specific conspiracy (here or anywhere else).

Assumptions about the number of people who would have to be involved are just that, assumptions.


But after watching interviews of controlled demolition experts and the architect who was in charge of the WTC towers electrical installation, it's not clear that it would have necessarily involved all that many people, nor that it could not have been done in a discrete manner (in thelevator shafts, for example) to avoid detection.

But even that is speculation.

Best to stick with the facts.

dhogaza said...

"You may also like to consider the case of the Blackburn Buccaneer which was designed with an area rule airframe to delay the onset of the that drag coefficient spike. Also the wings had comparatively small span and thickness/chord ratio for its intended role with high transonic speed at low altitude."

Again ignoring that the given speeds of the two 767s were not moving at "high transonic speed", but in the low Mach 0.8 range, perfectly within their capability.

You keep veering off into the problems airplanes experience with shock waves as they approach Mach 1, a subtle and dishonest dodge from the fact that this isn't what was happening on 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"But after watching interviews of controlled demolition experts and the architect who was in charge of the WTC towers electrical installation, it's not clear that it would have necessarily involved all that many people, nor that it could not have been done in a discrete manner (in thelevator shafts, for example) to avoid detection."

Remember: those experts will see a nail everwhere because they happen to have a hammer handy...

And the groups doing this would have to deliberately kill those people.

EVERY SINGLE attempt at making humans do shit like that requires FIRST that the people doing this consider the ones at risk "other" from themselves.

When considering casualties in war, "acceptable losses" are losses acceptable from THE OTHER SIDE killing your men. Not one case where the acceptable loss is from the deliberate extermination of your people by yourself.

And it's that which is completely missing from this theory that you have of a deliberate demolition process having caused the 11/9 event.

Remember: they have to also work with Saudis to fly planes into the building. Or hang about for an indeterminate period waiting to blow these americans who they have absolutely no reason to believe are not people "just like me" to kingdom come.

In the case of state vs union protestors, the police and army were able to consider these people "not us" by propaganda painting these people as communists, out to destroy American Freedom (tm).

There is no possibility of doing that with Joe and Jane Random Person in the WTC at that time.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anony-conspiracy-theorist: "I have not proposed a specific conspiracy (here or anywhere else)."

Yes, we noticed. Good strategy, that, as we could pretty much rip any detailed conspiracy theory a brand new and fully functioning arsehole based on the implausibility of said group having sufficient animus/motivation against capitalist America. Much better to keep everything vague. It provides you plenty of room to backpedal...as you did just then.

EliRabett said...

Until the Anonymi take a number (not 1) their comments will be deleted- The Management

Lionel A said...

dhogaza

"You keep veering off into the problems airplanes experience with shock waves as they approach Mach 1, a subtle and dishonest dodge from the fact that this isn't what was happening on 9/11."

So to use examples as an aid to getting you to understand that any 7x7 (and a 777 at that) will not survive at speeds much greater than 355KIAS at 1000Kft (FL 1 in the lingo although most will be clear of that soon after take off)is a dishonest dodge seeing as I produced data.

Well I'll call you on that. Please provide the evidence that it isn't so.

Go on get the data and do the maths.

I have provided data to back up my statements here whereas you have not.

Here is some more help for you

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178&st=160&p=10789557&#entry10789557

Note Vd (right boundary of yellow area) at 420KIAS, guess what that means.

Anonymous said...

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said

" At issue is whether there might be some other mechanism for that than intentional demolition--perhaps combustion of a whole helluva lot of jet fuel in a short period of time,"

There was no jet fuel involved in the collapse of WTC7 because it was not hit by a plane.

And any explosion (or explosions) that led to the free-fall for 2+ seconds of the upper building would have to have been energetic enough to effectively "remove" 8 floors of structural steel and concrete and have occurred across the entire footprint of the building so as to allow the upper building to fall very suddenly and very symmetrically, virtually unimpeded.

What this basically amounts to is "removal" of an 8 story block of the lower building.

A curious explosion, to be sure.

But NIST obviously dismissed the whole "explosion theory", "ordinary (natural gas, for example) or otherwise ("charges", which they didn't even look for residue of, for some odd reason) and instead went with their "progressive (gravitational) collapse" theory.




dhogaza said...

"Well I'll call you on that. Please provide the evidence that it isn't so."

I did, above, referencing a successful simulator run.

Note that the pilot who performed the test, and several professional 767 pilots he discussed the issue with, weren't concerned about the airframe breaking up. They knew it wouldn't.

Their concern was whether or not the engines could generate enough thrust to get up to speed at low altitude. The general consensus, pre-run, was "probably". The simulator test tells us yes, definitely.

And if you're going to start arguing that simulators don't really simulate airplanes you'll get laughed out of the house.

Looking forward to your ad hoc second hand quoting of white-knuckled pilots flying at high speed in airplanes that aren't Boeing 767s, at transonic speeds that don't have anything to do with the issue at hand, etc etc. It's entertaining.

It is also refreshing to see a non-yank demonstrate this level of whackiness ...

Anonymous said...

Anon-1000 here

Anon 101a:

Let me just say that you seem to be one of the few reasonable and reasoning commenters here.

I honestly don't know "who done it" or "how many of them done it" or "why they done it" and I don't even wish to speculate.

But I will say that "implausible" (or"plausible") is a term that is very much dependent on the specifics (and I was simply stating a fact when I said "I have not proposed a specific conspiracy (here or anywhere else)".

Clearly, a conspiracy that required 1000 members of the general public would be much more difficult to keep under wraps than, say, one that involved 50 people who were sworn to secrecy under penalty of long imprisonment.

As far as the demolitions experts, you could be right that some might see what they want to see (just like everyone else)

Then again, these people also know all the "signatures" of a controlled demolition (the collapse of the penthouse and "kink" in the roof-line preceding the building collapse (which were present on WTC7, by the way). Furthermore, these people are also undoubtedly very aware if a building collapse is exhibiting behaviors that are NOT consistent with CD or that are anomalous for CD.

Finally, the "plausibility" criterion also applies to the "theory of collapse" based on available evidence.

In reality, one can never "prove" something 100%. All one can do is try to find the theory that best explains all the data.

You may think I have rushed to judgement (others in this thread obviously do), but I have actually looked at a great deal of the evidence and find the CD theory to fit best with the facts.

Just my opinion, but at lest i have tried to base it on some physics.

As far as I am concerned, plausibility of the "collapse theory" based on whether it is consistent with all the available evidence holds far more weight than implausibility that "some undetermined number of conspirators could keep quiet" (which is very ill-defined)

Finally, as I said above, all the people like Engineers and Architects for 911 truth are asking for is to have a legitimate investigation done that considers all the possibilities.

It actually puzzles me that anyone could be opposed to that, especially anyone who has any questions at all about the official story (including the NIST report)

I suspect based on your comments above that you would at least agree that such an investigation is a good idea.

My goodness, even former Senator graham has indicated that he has questions about the Saudi government involvement and its ramifications.

There are many families who had loved ones die on 911 who have been asking for years now for just such an investigation.

Don't we owe them that?

others are free to call me any name in the book and it makes no difference. In fact it really doesn't matter what I think on this because I'm a nobody as far as decisions go.


Anonymous said...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/slowwitted-conspiracy-theorist-convinced-governmen,34749/

Coincidence? I think not!

Rib Smokin' bunny

Lionel A said...

dhogaza

"I did, above, referencing a successful simulator run..." etc

No you repeated the words from a blog post by a supposed 'truther' (as you condescendingly keep repeating) one John Bursill who has been shown up for the disinfo' agent making stuff up that he is:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19288&hl=Bursill&st=0

be sure to read the posts by Rob Balsamo - a pilot, one who has taken the council of pilots who have flown these types and discussed during a simulator run found here, which I cited upthread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC2.html

Now with this:

"Looking forward to your ad hoc second hand quoting of white-knuckled pilots flying at high speed in airplanes that aren't Boeing 767s, at transonic speeds that don't have anything to do with the issue at hand, etc etc. It's entertaining."

You are becoming downright insulting for those stories are not second hand! Whereas your so called 'simulator run' was surely third hand. Have you bothered to ascertain that what Bursill reports is valid? Your continued refusal to engage with the numbers, within the context of low altitude, tells me you have not..

Here is another idea. Find somebody with MS Flight Simulator (yeah I know its limitations but for demo purposes it is close) and a 7x7 model to fly (2004 will do it) with damage settings on e.g.

When running FS with a 7x7 on the runway Alt will bring up a menu. Choose Aircraft > Realism Settings.

Then Custom > Flight Model max realistic all, display IAS
check

detect crashes and damage
Aircraft stress
Collisions
G effects.

SHIFT Z will bring up a top line read out of essential flying info' in sim screen.

Climb to 1000ft and hold it there, retract undercarriage and flaps and keep accelerating, watch the speed read out.. You can see what will happen if you exceed max speed with those later – after the restart which will happen not long after an overspeed warning comes with you maintaining acceleration.

If you have exceed max U/C down speed then have fun landing after you select down and you don't get three greens. Rocking the wings may help, if you are lucky.

metzomagic said...

The only other time I can remember a post garnering this many comments at Eli's place was when poptech dropped in recently.

Trying to reason with the likes of poptech, while by no means an experience that is ever going to deliver epistemic closure, is orders of magnitude more... interesting (not the best word in this instance, but it will have to do) than reading the same tired argument expressed in 57 slightly different ways by a 911 truther.

Even the "CO2 is plant food" thingy is starting to look brilliant by comparison.

I've just started to do some research on trepanning. Not a coincidence, methinks...

dhogaza said...

"You are becoming downright insulting for those stories are not second hand!"

Yes they are. You've related stories told to you by pilots. You haven't claimed to be the pilot yourself.

Therefore, second hand ...

dhogaza said...

"If you have exceed max U/C down speed then have fun landing after you select down and you don't get three greens. Rocking the wings may help, if you are lucky."

Are you suggesting that the pilots were unable to safely land the 767s after flying into WTC1 and WTC2 at high speed on 9/11?

Color me surprised. I'd always heard that they and all the passengers landed safely afterwards.

If they didn't, how horrifying!

Kevin O'Neill said...

RE:
"Color me surprised. I'd always heard that they and all the passengers landed safely afterwards.

If they didn't, how horrifying!
"

LOL. See? This entire thread has now justified it's existence.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for the "Pilots for 911 'Truth'" to provide some evidence about the alien bases on the moon that stopped the Apollo project at 17.

1

Anonymous said...

"Lionel A" has succumbed to the trope that the hijacker pilots would have cared about maintaining the structural integrity of the hijacked aircraft so they would have adhered to the established flight restrictions designed to maximize airframe life cycle and would have been more conducive to making sure the passengers arrived at their destination alive.

Do you really think, for an instant, the hijackers gave a good flip about speed limits and whether or not the "undercarriage" would have deployed? Do you really think the hijackers gave a good flip about Vmo or Vno or Vne or Vanything? Do you really think the hijackers gave a good flip about anything other than flying the aircraft, pointing it to the target, and pushing the throttles to the firewall? Anyone who thing sthis is difficult or not doable has brain damage or is not a very good pilot. I head the leader of your Pilot's group i snot flyign because of some personal problems, and that may very well be why he claims these outlandish and absurdly ridiculous claims.

I say again, and unless you can provide a counterargument from a true professional pilot, one representing Boeing or a national aviation organization and speaks for them (not a third-rate Internet group who's members have claimed nearly every conspiracy theory on the books from missiles to drones to holograms to being Judy Wood disciples) and an Internet organization who's leader does not understand basic aerodynamics, your words carry no weight here.

Tristan in Maine

bill said...

Well, we just had the JFK half-centenary. I'm confident that this issue will also be as 'live' in 50 years as it is now, despite Chomsky having done to the Truthers what he did to BF Skinner... ;-)

Anonymous said...

Anon101-a here:

"I honestly don't know "who done it" or "how many of them done it" or "why they done it" and I don't even wish to speculate."

But not knowing and saying anyway IS SPECULATING.

You ***ARE*** doing that.

It doesn't help your case to use a personal definition "It's not *really* speculation if I'm just proposing a possibility" when that is not the definition of "not speculating" anyone at all uses.

FACT: WTC fell far too easily
FACT: "Burning fuel, duh!" Doesn't explain it.
FACT: Standard procedure in ANY building collapse is to let civil engineers look over the wreckage to determine how it failed so that future builds are safer.
FACT: The rubble was carted off and summarily buried away without any such post mortem.
FACT: The third tower should not have fallen at all.

All these indicate that something is wrong with the official line and that there is a conspiracy to avoid finding out what.

That is the ONLY conclusion that can be made that could concievably be non-speculative.

Explosives: speculation
Cost cutting: speculation
God's Wrath: speculation

The only fact we have on what's going on behind the events are that any possibility to find out what went wrong on that day is being deliberately quashed.

Hell, it may be that everything happened as it appears and the entire conspiracy is to merely ensure that a US corporation who built it cannot Richieleu'd by five words they uttered by people looking to blame them.

That, too, is speculation. And the only guilt is a desire to hide facts on the off-chance that they show some wrongdoing by someone well connected. We call that "CYA" it is so common and prevalent.

Anonymous said...

"And if you're going to start arguing that simulators don't really simulate airplanes"


They don't.

Thief Of Time has a point that is relevant here and is why you're 100% deserving of being "laughed out of the house".

All emergency planning leaves out one crucial part: the emergency.

Likewise, aircraft simulators simulate those bits of aircraft physics that they put in there, NOTHING MORE.

They don't put the wear and tear of 3 years use in the airframe. They don't put 20tons of luggage put in the hold and simulate their random jostling if something comes loose or the barely-paid staff are less than assiduous in their restraining of the luggage.

They don't simulate the updraft of a burning tower.

They simulate those bits that they included in the model.

Your faith otherwise, and scorn to the idea that anything is left out is nearly Moncktonian in its brazen stupidity.

Anonymous said...

All five of your "FACTS" are not facts at all.

1

Anonymous said...

"All five of your "FACTS" are not facts at all.

1"

+1

Rib Smokin' bunny

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"All five of your "FACTS" are not facts at all."

Yeah, sorry retard-hole, your statement there is complete and utter bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#2.1.3

Melting point of Steel:1100-1600.

Jet fuel open-air burning temperature: 260-315C:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

cf retardo's ""All five of your "FACTS" are not facts at all.""

So sad.

But worse: people who know anon-1 better are completely willing to agree with them if their pre-arranged bias to refute conspiracy theories MERELY FOR BEING conspiracy theories can be reaffirmed in their favour.

Think.

Or don't.

Lionel A said...

dhogaza

"Yes they are. You've related stories told to you by pilots. You haven't claimed to be the pilot yourself."

What I related was seeing their white faces whilst they exited their mounts and then snagged the aircraft because the Auto-stab had failed - the reason for their white face.

Talking to pilots when they return is part of the job - the de-brief.

Now you clearly are suffering from the poor comprehension that you accused me of.

"Are you suggesting that the pilots were unable to safely land the 767s after flying into WTC1 and WTC2 at high speed on 9/11?"

No of course I am not. I was merely pointing out that aircraft have various limiting speeds depending upon configuration in an attempt to get you to understand the existence of such with Vmo at 1000K feet being one of them which for a 7x7 is decidedly less than 510 KIAS.

Why I use these examples is to suggest to you that I might just know what I am talking about, clearly unlike you in this case.

Now stop skating around the data, start engaging with the numbers or try the other avenues of investigation I have suggested and drop the snarly insults at every turn. You are only making yourself look a bit silly.

And I thought it was only the likes of WUWT that persistently took statements out of context, picked cherries and resorted to hand waving. I have now seen all three of those from some here.

Lionel A said...

Tristan in Maine

"I say again, and unless you can provide a counterargument from a true professional pilot, one representing Boeing or a national aviation organization and speaks for them (not a third-rate Internet group who's members have claimed nearly every conspiracy theory on the books from missiles to drones to holograms to being Judy Wood disciples)..."

Did you miss the contribution of real pilots both mainstream airline aviation and military pilots to that site?

Go use a link I included in a reply up-thread, and check out who the core members are and also the professional associated groups.

As for 'third rate...every conspiracy in the book...holograms...Judy Wood'. Thus is only people hypothesising how things may have been done considering the visual evidence broadcast on the day, and I was watching it at home on TV as it unfolded on the day whilst recovering from a severe cardiac arrest, and in the period since.

Note the 'Mission Statement', on the main site of which this is an excerpt:

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government does not seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts."

and the frequent warnings from main Admin not to stray off that statement.

You appear to have made an overhasty judgement of the mindset there and I doubt that you have watched any of the core videos offered to which I have provided pointers.

And the point about exceeding speed limits, which is what would be required if the NTSB supplied data is accurate, is that these aircaft6 could not be standard 7x7s else they would have broken up in the air and cease to be reliable missiles with which to hit any target.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Anonymous said...

"Melting point of Steel:1100-1600.

Jet fuel open-air burning temperature: 260-315C:"

Right, because there was not any other combustible materials in WTC1 or WTC2.

The steel beams would only need to reach half their melting point to lose 50% plus of their strength.

Oh did I mention the building also had holes in them, so the fires had some assistance in bringing the buildings down.


Only a_ray is allowed to call me "rehtard", it means something coming from him, you not so much.

1

Anonymous said...

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization who sports a main member who believes aliens have moon bases."

Fixed.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonytroll 1, I do not believe I have ever called you a "rehtard" or a retard--I have more respect for the developmentally disabled than that.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

That is why I never call you slime.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonytroll1,
By all means. Wouldn't want to slander your mother.

Anonymous said...

a_ray,

Logical is absent in your last, as usual.

Of course we can now add to a "Mom" fetish to your little boy fetish.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Project much, AT1?

Anonymous said...

Nope. I am not the one making reference to moms and boys, that was and is you.

1

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Oh, right, you are the aborted result of a mating attempt between pondscum and snake excrement. Silly me. Do carry on.

Anonymous said...

Impressive a_ray, you were able to get enough of your boyfriends hairs out of your mouth to spit that last insult out.

Shall we go lower? You have no game. I would enjoy it.

1

Anonymous said...

From "Lionel A"

"
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?"

Because I choose not to "grasp" poorly constructed arguments using specious information from a fringe organization of unverified "professionals" led by an individual who concocts data to match his preconceived notions.

In all seriousness, you (and your "friends") clam that Boeing aircraft could not achieve the speeds tabulated that fateful day. Can you or can your "friends" produce any Boeing information, statement, data or facts that corroborate that claim? I do not mean "home made" V/g diagrams or extrapolations derived from, as Chomsky described, "thirty minutes on the Internet".

In all seriousness, don't you think that Boeing would side with these "friends" of yours if there were any truth to their claim? Don't you think that Boeing would like to clear its name if it is being accused of collusion in providing airframes that had been "altered" or "stiffened" to the point of being able to accelerate an aircraft (757 or 767) to speeds of that day?

In all seriousness, do you have any idea what levels these aircraft are engineered to? I have told you time and time again, the speeds these aircraft achieved were well within the capabilities of the airframe design, the engines attached and the atmospheric conditions of the day. The delta between aerodynamic limitations and atmospheric conditions (altitude, pressure altitude,etc) is larger than you or your pilot "friends" claim.

To close, not one professional Pilot organization - not one - not a single one, world wide - has endorsed or stood with your "pilot friends". Not one. Don't you think if there were any veracity to your and their claims that more would champion their cause? You have attached your wagon to charlatans and fakes. No doubt about it.

Good day,

Tristan in Maine

Anonymous said...

To amend my previous a tad, you and your "friends" will likely call the above notes an "appeal to authority", which is exactly correct. The authority, in this case, is not a third-rate set of supposed self-professed "experts" who exemplify the term "the exception rather than the rule", but rather the professional organizations, tens of thousands in numbers, world-wide, globally, from every nation on earth, who have not endorsed any of these supposed claims. You and your "friends" can continue these claims to your heart's content, and I heartily support your right to these claims, with gusto, however you should also expect the derision, opposition and principled acumen that opposes such tripe. Don the hat of ignorance, and don it proudly! One cannot help but question the "critical thinking skills" (or lack thereof) of a group who's members claim, as I have outlined previously, such intellectual behemoths as "a pilot could not hit the towers, but a remote controlled drone could", it was a "cruise missile" that hit the towers", there are "alien and human moon bases on the dark side of the moon", "holograms" were used, etc, so on and so forth. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and where there is idiocy, there is farce.

Good day,

Tristan in Maine

Lionel A said...

Tristan

“Because I choose not to "grasp" poorly constructed arguments using specious information from a fringe organization of unverified "professionals" led by an individual who concocts data to match his preconceived notions.”

With that one statement you have announced how divorced from reality you really are.

I provided arguments based upon data from cited authorised sources WRT 767 flight limitations (go look up if you didn't see this), used a recognised diagram to compare speed and Mach at altitude with those at 1Kft and also used an online calculator (which was also linked to so that you can go check for yourself) to convert and so correlate those same parameters.

Now those unverified “professionals” that you so flippantly demean include those listed here:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

And you have provide the testimony of which pilots exactly? Oh! I see, none.
And you have provided 7x7 flight limiting parameters where? I don't see any evidence of that.
I have also suggested a method for you to try it yourself, albeit using an entertainment flight simulator which although, quite rightly, deprecated for real life flight training nonetheless has sufficient realism built in for you to discover for yourself what happens when you overspeed a 7x7 at 1Kft , and that isn't anywhere near 510KIAS. Don't believe me – go try it.

And don't forget, video of 175 on approach to WTC2 shows an aircraft pulling out of a slight dive and banking – manoeuvres which will bring it even closer to exceeding its Vd. But that is academic, as it would have become a group of disconnected parts flying in close formation some time before, and certainly a rookie pilot – a supposed terrorist – would not have been able to control it. Once again go try this for yourself.

All I see is this type of handwaving:

“I have told you time and time again, the speeds these aircraft achieved were well within the capabilities of the airframe design, the engines attached and the atmospheric conditions of the day.”

And yet yours is an appeal to 'undeclared' authority, without any names or figures to back it up.

Besides, my opinion does not come from the "thirty minutes on the Internet" as you so sneeringly re-quote Chomsky, but from a lifetime of interest in aviation from being a young lad growing up in the 1950s and with a sizeable chunk of professional hands on experience along the way.

Now I suggest that you go study the V-G diagram again, one based based on Boeing 767 A1NM Type Certified Data.

http://s47.photobucket.com/user/myphotos1960/media/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg.html

Now you will note that neither Rob Balsamo, nor I, subscribe to some of the far out hypotheses that are traded on that forum. We don't have to for aircraft performance alone (and no we are not suggesting Boeing stiffened some up as missile for the use of) as portrayed by the NTSB is enough to tell us the OCT is a fraud. If a fraud in this, then where else is it. Many more clues are discussed here, not the use of the word discussed in the context of the mission statement:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22364

It is you who has is wearing the hat of ignorance here, or being mendacious, and what is more using ad hominem attacks, e.g. calling identified pilots names, but you are not alone in this on this thread.

dhogaza said...

"Now you will note that neither Rob Balsamo, nor I, subscribe to some of the far out hypotheses that are traded on that forum."

No, you just subscribe to some of them, not all of them.

We get that.

dhogaza said...

"Now those unverified “professionals” that you so flippantly demean include those listed here:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots"

Like John Lear, who believes that UFOs are real, have landed with little aliens having been witnessed by servicemen,

""Lear's scenario also includes the suspicion that the government has made secret deals with the 'aliens', actually exchanging humans for advanced technological data. Supposedly, the government was to be provided with a list of those being abducted so they could maintain a vigil over them after their experience and make sure that they were not being harmed in any way. Unfortunately, the 'aliens' took advantage of the situation, taking away tens of thousands for God knows what purpose, and implanting small transmitters inside their brains (ie. of those who were fortunate enough to be abducted and RETURNED - Branton) which can be activated for some sinister 'mission' at some prearranged future moment… "

THAT John Lear? Really? You expect us to take him seriously? Or you?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

You're right, 'professionals' would never ... ahem ... admit in public that evidence for any sufficiently advanced alien technology would be indistinguishable from UFO reports.

That would be so unprofessional!

Lionel A said...

And now we come to the, 'Oh! Look a squirrel' moment. IOW a distraction.


"Like John Lear, who believes that UFOs are real, have landed with little aliens having been witnessed by servicemen..."

OK. So out of 200 eminently respected and knowledgeable entomologists one happen to believe in a 'spiritual god' therefore every statement all of that group of 200 should be thrown into doubt.

You asked earlier 'Who to believe?'

It is not a question of belief but of understanding with you and others around here letting blind prejudice get in the way of learning.

That is considering you have as yet to supply any data or methodology to undermine my arguments, argument based upon facts gleaned from official documents and decades of involvement in aviation including gaining qualifications in aeronautical science and structural mechanics of aircraft.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I am extremely skeptical of belief in the undefined and undefinable. In fact in that area I am an unbeliever.

dhogaza said...

"OK. So out of 200 eminently respected and knowledgeable entomologists one happen to believe in a 'spiritual god' therefore every statement all of that group of 200 should be thrown into doubt."

No, Lear believes in little people who fly little round disks and who collaborate with the US government to do all sorts of nefarious things.

That's no "spiritual God" being discussed.

And he's highly touted on the list of experts you put forward yourself. He's the third squirrel on the list of squirrels you begged us to look at, in order to convince us that serious people believe as you do.

So I did. And your #3 squirrel is a friggin' UFOlogist.

"That is considering you have as yet to supply any data or methodology" …

Liar.

Lionel A said...

dhogaza

"No, Lear believes in little people who fly little round disks and who collaborate with the US government to do all sorts of nefarious things."

Never heard of an analogy.

There is an exact parallel between my entomologist believing in a god and Lear believing whatever he does.

Comprehension not your strong suit then.

On data and methodology demonstrating my arguments are false - you have supplied none.

Other than vague statements about 'over engineered' and quoting (which you failed to cite BTW) a debunked blogger and I have shown you where all that happens.

If you consider that 'data' and 'methodolgy' then you don't understand the concept of either.

As for me being a liar, as explained in the above I am far from that.

That makes you an ad hominem throwing hypocrite blinkered by prejudice.

Maybe it is your cognitive dissonance making you so angry and unpleasant. Shame, I never had you down as being like this.

Have the last word if you like, I am done arguing with a version of the spaghetti flying monster. Unless...?

dhogaza said...

"Have the last word if you like"

OK! Last word!

Now's your chance to prove you're not a liar …

Anonymous said...

Lionel A;

You claim I'm the one "divorced from reality"? When you are the one who is the fawning sycophant amidst a hand full of other sycophants blindly following a leader who had displayed time and time again a paltry and questionable understanding of basic aeronautical and aeroplane principles?

I have followed your running back to your website and leadership, complaining of those who comment here and how they are not "listening" to you. It is really a rather humorous action - almost as if you are seeking confirmation of your bias and asking (pleading, rather) what to do next. If you do not have the power of your convictions and cannot survive by yourself, intellectually, in an Internet debate forum such as this without asking your minders "Have I missed anything?" then you should avoid any attempts at debate because this is not your milieu. I would recommend you stay on your home pages, where you are surrounded by like-thinking individuals, people who pat each other on the back and heartily agree with anything and everything posted, provided the discussion does not run afoul of your leader's view of the events of the day.

And as far as "Have you asked them to read claim 1 in the following linked thread?", I will quote a well known meme: "On the Internet, nobody knows if you are a dog". Have you met these people? Do you know any of then personally? Anyone can post a link to an FAA database that simply asks for questioner data (anything can be input there) and names of aviators, pilots or "aerospace professionals" (such as they claim to be") and a name will be spit out. If you are so gullible to believe the exaggerations, misrepresentations and outright "fanciful, fantastic and delusional" claims (as United States District Judge Denny Chin characterized the Gallop law suit which your leader supported) of the group you have associated yourself with, you deserve the responses herein, herewith and elsewhere.

I also note that you have asked your leader and his followers "Who is Tristan in Maine anyway". Why would you do that? It is a fact that your leader has, in past Internet encounters, sought to gain personal and private information of those who voiced opinions of established fact that ran counter to his perspective on issues. Is that what you are seeking? I would respectfully ask that you remind your leader of the penalties associated with any violation of federal or state privacy acts regarding the misuse, acquisition and/or any other acts associated with the misappropriation of any personal identifiable information. I thank you in advance.

Tristan

dhogaza said...

"I also note that you have asked your leader and his followers "Who is Tristan in Maine anyway""

Good catch, turns out our anon is a crybaby who runs home to mama when he's unsure of himself.

Remember, though, you promised us the LAST WORD … do prove yourself to be a liar!

Anonymous said...

To try and tie this much-wandering (in an agreeable manner, mind you) thread back to its original post, Mr. Chomsky make a very valid point when he says the 9/11 Truthers "are not doing what scientists and engineers do when they think they've discovered something".

"What you do, when you think you've discovered something, is write articles in scientific journals, give talks at the professional societies..."

I am not aware of *any* professional aviation organization or society that Lionel A's group has presented to or *any* article that has been accepted and published by a professional aviation organization.

In short, the ideas, theories, conjecture and fantasy that makes up Lionel A's claims have been presented, ad nauseum, to the professional aviation world and have been found less than wanting.

Indeed, Lionel A's leader, Mr Balsamo, has proudly stated "Also keep in mind, every press release, article and technical paper published on our main website is sent to more than 100 media outlets (mainstream and alternative), airline union leadership and members (many airline union leaders/members are also members of our organization), and govt agencies." And not one...not a single one, world wide, has championed his cause, for over 7 years, since Mr Balsamo's entry into this discussion in 2006. Numbers of believers in his "fanciful" claims mean nothing if the professional elements of his discipline reject his claims and theories, wholeheartedly and out of hand.

I do not know if Lionel A. will return, given his parting comment about "the last word", but I, for one, would welcome him back to hear what the next fanciful direction he has from his leadership to foist upon our good forum here.

To close, Lionel A's organization he touts likes to state that "evidence from the government cannot be trusted" because it came from that self same government.

When one examines Lionel A's own organization's flagship web page, where opponents to their claims are treated to approximately 10 statements with internet links that supposedly provide prima facie evidence of their veracity, out of 57 links, fully 52 of those links lead back to their own organization's web page. The pot and the kettle comes to mind here.

Good day, all!

Tristan

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Right, because there was not any other combustible materials in WTC1 or WTC2."

Right, so these more easily combustible materials were used for structural support and load bearing in a building designed to withstand a plane with fuel crashing into it...

I'm glad you're not a civil engineer, anonie-1

Anonymous said...

Tristan says -



And yet they call people at P4T paranoid? Wow. LMAO!

Hey Tristan, are you in agreement with the "Russell Seitz" on this page who claimed that Boeing builds to a 400% margin of safety?

If you are following the discussion at the P4T forum regarding this article, you should already know that Mr. Seitz claims are false.

Also, the Pilots at P4T can be verified at FAA.gov. Now Tristan claims that P4T are impersonating real pilots?

Really?

And they call the people at P4T "Conspiracy Theorists"?

I guess all these pictures are photoshopped as well Tristan?

http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

Wow... just wow.

Anytime you have evidence for your claims, feel free to post it, Tristan. You may also what to correct Russell Seitz above since you now have the accurate information from the page you've been visiting at P4T, directly from Boeing themselves.

And don't worry, no one will try to track you down. In fact, you can look up the addresses of many of the pilots from P4T and knock on their door if you really wish to learn anything about aviation. But you may have to pay the going rates for Flight Instruction as many of them are certified by the FAA to instruct.

Good luck!


Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"I am not aware of *any* professional aviation organization or society that Lionel A's group has presented to or *any* article that has been accepted and published by a professional aviation organization."

Uh, there have been several.

They have gone nowhere, but almost entirely due to the same BS you and your kin here are doing: "It's a conspiracy theory? MUST BE WRONG".

There are questions from civil engineering institutes in the USA that require answers not because these engineers want "the truth", but they want do do their frikking job better.

But they can't because the materials that failed were taken away and destroyed instead of looked at.

Questions to official inquiries to the events of 11/9.

But when those inquiries were closed, the questions remained unanswered.

A bit like the OJ Simpson trial.

Anonymous said...

anon101a,

The other combustible materials raised the temperature and the amount of heat of the fire to the point of reducing the strength of the steel beams which contributed to the collapse.

You are not too bright are you?

1

Lionel A said...

Dhogaza

First let me remind you about that last word, which I qualified at the time with 'Unless'.

Once again you are ignoring what is in front of your eyes.

Now who is the liar when I have provided authoritative data in this post

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/using-nanothermite-to-blow-up-denialism.html?showComment=1386173060196#c5885093444211545111

and the one that followed it:

“But on speed limitations I found the following helpful:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/a8694be7b7ac6c178625731e006944bc/$FILE/A1NM%20Rev%2026.pdf

So.

United Airlines Flight 175
Boeing 767-222 N612UA
The plane's serial number is 21873 and is powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D Series engines.

767-222 serials 21862-21880
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

Equivalent airspeed is defined as the speed at sea level that would produce the same dynamic pressure as the true airspeed at the altitude the vehicle is flying at.

Mach 1 at 22000 ft ISA (temp) is 608.72 knots
Mach .99 22000 ft ISA (temp) is 602.63 knots
Mach .86 at 22000 ft ISA (temp) is 522 knots

TAS 522 knots @ 22000 ft, -29 C EAS is 369 knots. Mach 0.86
TAS 522 knots @ 1000 ft, 13 C EAS is 514 knots Mach 0.79


VMO = 360 KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed is in practice at subsonic speeds over 200 mph close to IAS values but with Bernoulli compression compensation applied)

Vmo for a 767 is stated for a reason, to expect one to do 360KAS + 154 knots is a big ask.“

SPLIT HERE

“Now you can work out all the above stuff using formulae or from this online calculator:

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.aspx#TrueAirspeed

or deduce similar from the charts here:

http://www.tscm.com/mach-as.pdf”

and more.

So when compared with your vague hand waving in place of data and methodology who is the liar now.

As for myself being a cry baby running home to mama, it is nothing like that at all, it was by way of an heads up. Neither am I unsure of myself for I have done the work needed to fix the truth here. Maybe you missed the bit about my qualifications in aeronautics and experience.

Besides, I was getting a rain check on latest developments WRT investigations whilst I have been coping with serious illness and limiting myself to following the more important science backed climate change issues by visiting the honest blogs (i.e. NOT Climate Depot, WUWT, BishopHill etc) and studying the scientific literature.

As for my 'Who is Tristan in Maine anyway?' that was by way of a rhetorical question pondering what expertise Tristan has that makes him so sure I am wrong. After all we have seen precious little from either of you that addresses the numbers in a quantifiable way.

The people who matter at Pilots for 9/11 truth are all recognisable and accredited. Yourselves WRT aviation are ...? Note that 'common sense' here can lead you very much astray.

But don't let me stop you with your metaphorical 'sticking the boot in' for it is now becoming farcically entertaining as you double down on wilful ignorance and hypocrisy, like AWatts.

Lionel A said...

Tristan in Maine

“I am not aware of *any* professional aviation organization or society that Lionel A's group has presented to or *any* article that has been accepted and published by a professional aviation organization.”

Whoa! Just what do you think aeronautical engineering science and the design of heavier than air machines is based upon? Greek mythology.

You really have to do better than offering such trite distractions, wrapped in so many obfuscating words that even WattsUpDoc could not better.

Interesting. Spambot catcher offers a[r]gues nist***

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a said, regarding Lionel A's "aviation" group's publishing articles in mainstream aviation journals:

"Uh, there have been several."

Wonderful! I would love to read them. Please point out the journals or professional proceedings or documented theses and/or abstracts so I can learn from these "professionals".

Aviation Week? The IEEE Journals would surely carry such an important article on aviation. ICAO as well, since these aviation claims from Lionel A's group affect aircraft world wide. FAA? Embry-Riddle? JAME? I have searched all these and find *nothing* posted by or hosted for the "Pilots for 9/11 Truth".

Surely there would be posted articles from the Pilot's group in the military journals...Navy's Proceedings? Army Journal of Army Aviation? Air Force journals? No?

Where are these mainstream professional publications you say have published, "several", I believe you said, that have published articles and papers outlining their claims?

Thank you in advance.

Tristan in Maine

Anonymous said...

Tristan,

Do you agree with Russell Seitz that Boeing builds a 400% safety margin into their aircraft?

Have you viewed this video from Boeing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0

Russell Seitz said...

Anonymous, have you ever tried to pull the wings off a 757?


Do you think it it would take more or less than 400% of the bird's GTW?

You're starting to outperform thermite in the it burns!department.

Anonymous said...

Hello Mr. Steiz,

I had a feeling you would be showing up soon since Tristan evaded my initial question above.

You have argued in the comment section of this article on 30/11/13, that "in areas of stress concentration the [airplane] is still beefed up to a 400% marging[sic] of safety."

Signed - TheFacts

After viewing the video posted above by Boeing, demonstrating a broken wing at 154% of G Loading (150% mandated by the FAA), do you still hold on to your assertion that Boeing "beefs up the airplane to a 400% margin of safety"?

Are you aware of the mandated margin of safety limits mandated by the FAA for airspeed?

Anonymous said...

I guess Mr Seitz is doing his homework at this time. Good idea.

So let me take this opportunity to say I am a bit new to this blog format, and apologize to Mr. Seitz for misspelling his name in the above comment. It was not intentional... and I did not have an option to edit.

Furthermore, I would like to clarify that when Mr. Seitz claims there is a 400% margin of safety built in to "the thing", he is also claiming that an aircraft which has a manufacturer limitation of 360 knots, can fly at 1440 knots based on the alleged margin of safety asserted by Mr. Seitz.

1440 knots is roughly Mach 2.5.

As to his assertion of "GTW". I am assuming he means MTOW. Which means Max Take-Off Weight.

The 767 in question MTOW is 315,000 lbs.

315,000 * 4 (400% "marging[sic] of safety") equals nearly 1.3 Million pounds.

Apparently Mr Seitz thinks that a Boeing 767 can travel at nearly Mach 2.5, at a weight nearly 60% of the Boeing 747-400 GTOW.

Perspective.

-TheFacts

Anonymous said...

another typo... ugh...

"..at a weight nearly 60% of the Boeing 747-400"

was supposed to be...

at a weight exceeding nearly 60% of the Boeing 747-400 MTOW.

- TheFacts

Anonymous said...

60%

Test...

Not sure why it wont post the "1" in one-hundred sixty percent. But there is it....

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for the journals and/or professional proceedings or documented theses and/or abstracts from this group of "pilots" so I can learn from their peer-reviewed claims= and associated comments.

I would prefer something from a mainstream, professional organization rather than 52 of 57 links that lead back their own claims and posts.

I'll ask one more time. Does anyone here have any documented, peer-reviewed articles or position papers or abstracts that have been published in any mainstream aviation journal that supports the claims of this pilot's group? They claim that they send press releases out "to more than 100 media outlets" - surely if their claims were accurate and proven and logical and true there would be support for these claims besides their own group, a group that contains members who claim alien moon bases, 11.2 g maneuvers, holograms, missiles and/or "fanciful, fantastic and delusional" claims. Anyone?

Tristan in Maine

Anonymous said...

Tristan,

A publication was made in the AIAA by an AIAA Associate Fellow, but it was deleted by the AIAA mods.

Many of the Pilots at P4T are members, or are/were elected officials of ALPA.

With that said, if any when a major Airline organization endorses the findings of P4T, would that change your mind? Or would you just attack that organization as you have demonstrated here without discussing any of the facts.

I'll ask one more time (third time asked), do you agree with Mr. Seitz that Boeing build a 400% margin of safety into their aircraft?

A simple yes or no will do. But it is clear why you have evaded such a question. You'd rather attack the messenger than tackle the facts.

- TheFacts

dhogaza said...

"A publication was made in the AIAA by an AIAA Associate Fellow, but it was deleted by the AIAA mods."

Which means it wasn't submitted and approved, not a paper (virtual or otherwise) in any normally accepted use of the word.

Being an elected labor union official (ALPA) doesn't give one special technical expertise over other certified airline pilots, just like being a team's NFLPA representative doesn't mean you have special football skills over other NFL players.

dhogaza said...

"Furthermore, I would like to clarify that when Mr. Seitz claims there is a 400% margin of safety built in to "the thing", he is also claiming that an aircraft which has a manufacturer limitation of 360 knots, can fly at 1440 knots based on the alleged margin of safety asserted by Mr. Seitz.

1440 knots is roughly Mach 2.5."

Which totally ignores the stress effects of the shock waves that build up in transonic speeds, dufous, which don't exist at subsonic speeds.

Some expert you are ...

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 384   Newer› Newest»