MIT

[kinslayer1965]

Some very interesting reading from the MIT webbsite for those who are interested.
 
 
http://web.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/c/civenv/wtc/

[Casull]

Oh, come on now, Kinslayer1965.  You know those MIT people don't know anything about engineering or science.  This is all "disinfo".  The only real information comes from the truthers.   

[kinslayer1965]

Casull,
 
I know it is a stretch to think that MIT might have something worth reading on there webbsite.    We will have to see what others think. I am pretty sure I know what some will say.
 
CR

[kinslayer1965]

Wow did your response come as a surprise!
 
 
 
1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11. You are correct fire alone did not cause those building to collapse either. Two had jets flown into them and the third sustained considerable damage when the towers fell.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small. Too ridiculous to even comment on.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
Minor fires??? Firefighters first on scene after towers collapsed stated WTC7 had sustained major damage and would fall.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9). Much smaller buildings with much less weight and stress on structural members.
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, “…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it,” slang for demolish it. So in the space of time available to them they sent in domolition crew to set up explosive to destroy a building while it was on fire. Ridiculous.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had “only a low probability of occurrence.” The probablility reports for muslims flying airliners into buildings before 9/11 were pretty small as well.
7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. You and every other conspiracy person listem to me!!!!!! Steel does not have to reach a melting point to fail. Read your engineering manuals. Steel starts loosing structural integrity far below the melting point.
 
 
I might add that the whole freefall speeds thing you keep bringing up is ridiculous as well. Been proven wrong again and again.

[Casull]

    

[kinslayer1965]

TM7,
 
Why do you insist on misquoting the info that I post. Neither NIST or MIT claims that fire alone caused the collapse of the towers or WTC7.
 
"total symetrical pancake freefall" wow another one to add to my list of phrases that you guys repeat so often you start to believe they mean something. Somehow now the towers were designed to take multiple hits by airliners.
 
Amazing someone in a he said she said something somewhere utters the word "pulled" and it has to have been an all encompasing goverment coverup. The only official documents I have seen stated what I posted earlier and that has not changed.
 
So you are saying that a team of demolition people went in and installed the explosives and trigger/timing mechanisms on specific floors (i say this becasue as we have all seen the two toweres collapse started at the impact floors) then the hijackers were kind enough to fly into the right floors, after which the explosives, triggers, wiring and timing equipment were hardy enought to withstand the impact of 1/4 million pounds of aircraft and the resulting fires so that they could perform their intended purpose and bring about a "total symetrical pancake freefall". DID I COVER ALL THE "SALIENT" POINTS
 
Where is your proof there was a stand down by NORAD? I have heard this mentioned but as yet have seen no proof. I have looked and I can't find it. Oh I forgot all you guys need is a couple he said she said comments by someone and it becomes a "absolute fact"
 
I have posted and reposted the info on the freefall myth and you refered to it as spamming when I did so. I believe Casull even reposted it once. But even if we repost the info you always have your two favorite phrases...you know the ones you pull like a gun from a holster "goverment coverup site" and my personal favorite "disinfo"

[kinslayer1965]

I got curious and got out my "handi" ballistics calculator and found out the following"
 
225,000 lbs = 1,575,000,000 grains
500MPH = 735 FPS roughly
1,575,000,000 grain projectile striking an object at 735 FPS generates
 
1,889,779,618 footpounds of energy
 
Just something to think about. In fact the more I think about it the more I am amazed those buildings stood as long as they did.

[Casull]

 

[Casull]

better check and see if a Boeing 767 is capable of 500mph at 700ft

 
Why would it not be? 

[kinslayer1965]

You guys make the same mistake over and over again. You hear the phrase "maximum speed airframe rating" or something similar to that and you asume that the plane can't fly past that speed at a given altitude. When in reality what it means is that the FAA and the manufactureres have put limits in place as to speeds and altitudes because they don't want to put to much stress on the aircraft. Once these levels have been exceeded for what ever reason certain things have to be done to the aircraft up to and included a complete overhaul of the engines and stress testing the entire airframe. This is as you can imagine a very expensive process and they already have to go through scheduled maintenance and engine overhauls they do not look kindly at any pilot who causes them to have to go through more. SO maximum speed at altitude is limit put in place by the airline and the FAA not by the abilities of the aircraft. You go to Boeing's webb site and it list maximum airspeed sea level as "unknown". I doubt very seriously that the hijackers were worried about causing untimely maintenance issues. Before you ask some of this I got off the manufacturers website and some from a good friend who has been a pilot for one of the large passener airlines for over 17 years. He was in the air on 9/11. By the way he had never heard of "pilots for 9/11" or whatever it is called. I told him about it and lets just say his opinion of the site was blunt and not very complimentary.
 
I would be interested in seeing a link to a NIST or MIT page that list fire as the only cause. If one exist I have not seen it.
 
As my father said "just because you are lost doesn't mean your compass is broken". Don't think I ever fully understood what he meant but it is getting clearer to me.

[Casull]

Or the unified serial number codes for the aircraft involved....

 
What, exactly, would these codes explain or prove?
 
 

BTW...how you coming with pics of the tower's debris field....been waiting for them....

 
Again, what, exactly, does this so-called lack of photos explain or prove? 

[Casull]

What, exactly, would these codes explain or prove?
Shows what planes actually hit the buildings...two of the planes are listed by the NTSB as not taking off that day if I recall...SOP forensics.

 
So, NO probative value as to how the buildings collapsed.  Right?
 
 

Again, what, exactly, does this so-called lack of photos explain or prove?
Obvious.  Symetrical Pancake collapse....just like #7, which was not hit by any aircraft.

 
So, the LACK of photos proves "symetrical pancake collapse"?  Just want to make sure that is what you are claiming.  BTW, does that mean that the lack of photos of Bigfoot prove his existence?

[Casull]

Let's keep it straight, now....you're the guys that believe random damage and random fires

 
No, those are your words.  I don't find the application of nearly 2 billion (yes, billion) foot pounds of kinetic energy to be "random damage".     

[Lost Farmboy]

  This MIT engineer does not seem so convinced. He brings up some very interesting questions. Proof the fires were burning cool. No known explanation of how the computer boards were pulverized into dust particles.
 

 MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related


 MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related

[billy_56081]

Kinslayer ...know what 'lift' is, or more appropriately what 'loss of lift', stalling is..??  Pilots are well schooled in speed at elevation science. The OCTheorist claim that the max airframe speed was exceeded greatly for up to 180 seconds.. ...not just a few seconds as in a panic dive...180 seconds @ +50%+ airframe speed...   by novice pilots with likely loss of lift and the planes held together and could accurately manuevere to targets...even though professional pilots have said they could not duplicate these flying feats . Know what an aeronautics package is or designed safety margin is...?  I am not a pilot, but my understanding is that these planes are designed to elevate when exceeding airframe max speed, and by the aeronautics control package installed in the plane....to protect passengers and the plane from breaking up.  Just the other day we had a plane at an air show speeding along, lost/broke an airilon control, and crashed quickly into the crowd....that happened to an experienced pilot flying on the edge.
 
Of course having the Ronkonkoma radar tapes of the day would be helpful; but they were destroyed..
Or having the FDRecorder info would be nice...
Or the unified serial number codes for the aircraft involved....
 
NIST and MIT claim random dieing fires, after random airplane crashes producing asymetrical damage, softened steel to produce simultaneous fitting failures to produce symetrical freefall pancake collapses...first time in history. Of course number 7 was not hit by a plane, but a 'magic beam' failed from random fires to produce a 3rd freefall collapse....that's the OCTheory as incredible as it seems..    Nope the towers didn't topple over as one might have calculated.
 
BTW...how you coming with pics of the tower's debris field....been waiting for them....
 
TM7
.
 
.

AN aircraft can fly at speeds beyond what it is rated at. It is not like these folks were worried about being able to recover. Obviously someone does not understand what stall speeds are and what stalling is. A person cannot rely on "what they read on the internet" I have heard a few posters parrot all kinds of BS on the subject of 9/11. The blatther they spouted about things like IFF and stinger missile were part of my training in the United States Army, and what the person was spouting about these subjects was untrue and even a lie.

[billy_56081]

TM just because someone days they are a pilot on a forum does not make it true. The thing hurting the conspiracy bunch the most is the constantly changing "facts" and the easily proven false "facts".

[Casull]

possible remote and homing controls

 
 
That's funny.  First you say it can't be done, and then in the same paragraph, you say maybe it was done by remote control.  Yep, humorous fellow you are.

[Casull]

Wow, who would have thought that two condemned buildings would have thousands of white collar workers actually working in them.   

[nw_hunter]

TM just because someone days they are a pilot on a forum does not make it true. The thing hurting the conspiracy bunch the most is the constantly changing "facts" and the easily proven false "facts".

.
 
But pilotsfor911truth.com are professional pilots and lots of them. If all the facts for the Crime of the Century were known, then it wouldn't be a conspiracy....would it?  I don't think perps go about detailing how they exactly pull off crimes and deceptions.
 
..TM7
.

Look TM7!........The Boy's and Girl's in DC have rendered their verdict on the 911 tragedy, and the sheeple have bought it. You are not going to change the minds of someone who after being presented with facts, reply with a  or  or Big Foot response. They have been watching Faux News or one of the other Government endorsed information agency's. Their minds are set!

It's really easy to fool most of the people, and the remaining few pose NO threat!
This has been proven over and over on election day.

A handful of Goat herding, Camel riding, stone age Arabs, flying very large jet airplanes did it.
It couldn't have happened any other way..................PERIOD!

[kinslayer1965]

nw_hunter,
 
I find it strange that you would in your post belittle people for using the little funny faces and yet when looking at your profile and post you have no problem using the funny little guys. Probably says something about the way you look at a lot of things.
 
Speaking for myself. I cannot remember the last time I watched "faux" news much less any of the MSM channels. So that dog won't hunt.
 
I also to my knowledge have never used the phrases "goat herding", "camel riding", or "stone age" in any of my post concerning 9/11. You seem to have a very poor opinion of Arabs. I have however posted quite a bit of technical data that would no doubt be lost on you.
 
BTW I hear Arabs even have cell phones now.
 
See no funny faces......although I wanted to so badly.
 
CR

[BUGEYE]

the bernouli effect merely explains how a wing gains lift.  I learned that my second day on the job at Delta airlines in 1968.

[BUGEYE]

when the airflow over the wing slows enough it will stall. such as a steep climb without afterburners.
under normal power and normal angles of attack (like the 9-11 planes) the wing will not stall.
the only planes that don't stall are harriers and some crop dusters because their thrust is greater than the weight of the plane.
the 9-11 planes were flying well within safety parameters.

[BUGEYE]

when Boeing designs a new airplane, the first thing they do is destroy it. they know exactly how much stress the airframe can take.  after the aircraft type is certified they tell the FAA all the specs. the FAA then reduces those by about 10%. after the airline buys the plane, they reduce it further by about 5%.  so the airframe has a wide envelope to operate in.
if the airframe couldn't withstand another 200 knots in speed, it would be too fragile to certify for use in this country.
I know commercial aircraft, hazy on private aircraft.  if an airframe was as fragile as you suggest, they would never survive the 1000s of landings they have to endure.   after all, a landing is nothing more than a controlled crash.

[billy_56081]

Someone does not understand what stall means. I guess being he read that on the internet from an "expert" and it fits his agenda it must be true.  Kinda like the 4000 watt death ray kit that ran on AA batteries.

[BUGEYE]

RE: pilots for 911 truth.  I probably know as many pilots as anyone here and have never heard any of them say that it was anything but some pretty smart arabs that slipped in under the radar.
they didn't just come up with the hijack idea on 9-10
it's all our fault for being complacent and letting it happen.  hopefully, we've learned some lessons.

[billy_56081]

Someone does not understand what stall means. I guess being he read that on the internet from an "expert" and it fits his agenda it must be true.  Kinda like the 4000 watt death ray kit that ran on AA batteries.

.
 
More meaningless crap, and a lie, coming from a turkey manure purveyor....yada-yada-yada....    Why don't you explain exactly what stall is doctor....
 
..TM7

Please explain what stall is? Please!   

[BUGEYE]

RE: pilots for 911 truth.  I probably know as many pilots as anyone here and have never heard any of them say that it was anything but some pretty smart arabs that slipped in under the radar.
they didn't just come up with the hijack idea on 9-10
it's all our fault for being complacent and letting it happen.  hopefully, we've learned some lessons.

.Yeah well, go to www.pilotsfor911truth.com and ask them some questions and look into a few things...nothing to fear if your so right in your convictions. Check out their membership.
 
..TM7

anyone can claim anything they want on the web.  that site puts out a lot of untruths that the unknowing might take as gospel.  one thing I've noticed about the web is, those that know the truth don't have web sites trying to spread their own views. there may be some, but they are scarce.
nw_hunter, I give my word that I will not stoop to calling names, sheeple etc. or be condescending in my posts. can you and tm7 do the same?

[Lost Farmboy]

  This MIT engineer does not seem so convinced. He brings up some very interesting questions. Proof the fires were burning cool. No known explanation of how the computer boards were pulverized into dust particles.
 

 MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related


 MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related

 
Is anybody going to comment on these 2 videos?

[billy_56081]

  This MIT engineer does not seem so convinced. He brings up some very interesting questions. Proof the fires were burning cool. No known explanation of how the computer boards were pulverized into dust particles.
 

 MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related


 MIT Engineer Disputes 911 Theory of the WTC Collapse-Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW81Cd7nNH8&feature=related

 
Is anybody going to comment on these 2 videos?

Did you notice that the crowd scene in the video is not in the same building as the scene where he is talking? Maybe you need to do a little investicgation! LOL if these folks want to be taken more serious they need to at least lie a little better.
 
I guess if something agrees with what you believe in you don't pay much attention to the flaws and discrepincies.

[Lost Farmboy]

  I don't see how this proves Jeff King was not an MIT engineer speaking his mind.