MIT

[billy_56081]

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

Why make it look like you are speaking to a huge group of people when you are not? Doesn't add much credibility to your character.

[Lost Farmboy]

  He was speaking. Not making the video. I thought we were talking about the engineer not the video maker. Does the video maker make the engineer's points less valid?

[billy_56081]

  He was speaking. Not making the video. I thought we were talking about the engineer not the video maker. Does the video maker make the engineer's points less valid?

Makes me not want to believe anything avbout the video. It appears he is a bit nutty and wants it to look like he has hundreds of people that wanted to hear him speak. It looks desperate!

[Casull]

 

He was speaking. Not making the video. I thought we were talking about the engineer not the video maker. Does the video maker make the engineer's points less valid?

       Isn't the fact that someone tried to alter the reality of the video one of those bits of evidence that you say we should look at?

[BUGEYE]

  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?

yes.  back in the late 50s or early 60s a method of building was to fabricate a floor of concrete and then jack that floor to the top and then make another one etc.  I believe it was in Carbondale IL where as the building was nearly finished, the top floor failed and they all pancaked down. several people were killed.  some time ago, I made two rod holders from 1/4" steel by merely heating them with my propane torch and bending them into shape.
steel becomes very soft when heated.  the video said there was not enough air to fuel the fire but like a forest fire that creates it's own weather system, so did the burning planes.  once ignited, kerosene burns much hotter than gas and would suck in vast amounts of air through the hole in the side of the building.  also it burns longer than gas and being more oily would put out a tremendous amount of smoke.  check the black smoke at any plane crash.
the building above the affected floors would be exerting hundreds of thousands of tons of weight on those floors and when the steel became soft enough, down they came.
as each floor was involved, there would be a tremendous compression of air which would blast it out the side with all its debris.

[BUGEYE]

part 2.
I guess I've watched the films as much as most people and just don't see any evidence of set explosions.  as the building collapsed, the compression of air in each floor would also blast down elevator shafts and stairways and blow out windows and walls on the floors below which also took fire with it...  my little campfires will singe the hair off my legs if I get too close.  imagine all the flammable material on the plane and in the offices and thousands of gallons of jet fuel and you will see that it could bring down a building.
a few years ago I was at my parents in Florida and they needed to dispose of a foam mattress. since they had some trash to burn I said "like an idiot" lets just burn it. big mistake!!! it burned so hot that you couldn't get within 30' of it and the black coloumn of smoke brought out the fire department.
yes, they told us how stupid we were.  if you have some foam, experiment.....
the guy in the video was just not believable.
going back to plane crashes, I've studied a few. our L-1011 that crashed in Dallas had a heavy fuel load on because of possibly having to divert or hold for a while. the black smoke streched for roughly 5 miles.
I had to crank up the old Dell desk-top to get sound so I hope I've cleared up some misconceptions.

[Cabin4]

How fast was the 1st and the 2nd planes traveling when they hit the Twin Towers?

[BUGEYE]

How fast was the 1st and the 2nd planes traveling when they hit the Twin Towers?

Cabin4, I don't who you're asking but I'll take a guess and say 400 knots or better.
they may seem to be going slower but that's just the way a large aircraft looks from the ground.
the bad guys could have flown them all the way to the towers without touching the throttles.
I think somewhere in this thread or another, full power was mentioned but most commercial jet engines go their whole usable lives without ever going to full power except when tested after after an overhaul or major repair.

[BUGEYE]

TM, that 360 mph is from takeoff to an altitude where you won't find a gaggle of geese in your way.
at the altitude where the buildings were hit is much below the normal cruising altitude and would naturally pick up speed while diving to impact altitude. I told Cabin4 it was probably 400 knots or better.  things happened so fast that no observer could accurately judge the true speed.
and since the transponders were turned off, the controller could only give a guess.
I read some of the stuff you linked to and 30 years experience tells me that it's just the usual disinfo you find on conspiracy sites.
if someone really wants the truth, read my posts or go talk to a REAL pilot.

btw, these high speed stalls you keep referring to arent't gonna happen at those speeds.
the airframe is designed to withstand high speed in a dive.
it's different than it was when the fuselage was covered with fabric.

[BUGEYE]

TM,  that 360mph is a speed that is mandated by the FAA below 8000ft so that there would be less damage to the plane in case of a collision with a bird.
it has NOTHING to do with any kind of control surfaces.
find a commercial pilot and ask him, not some faceless name at pilots for 911.
which, by the way, start their website with disinfo "egypt air 990".  the NTSB, who had no dog in the fight, determined that there were NO structural failures to the airframe per the black box and even if an elevator failed, the plane would not respond like it did. and the pilot could overcome a bad elevator by manipulating the horizontal stabilizer.
there are two "black boxes".  a voice recorder and a data recorder. the data recorder tracks every control surface movement and any other important data that might be needed in an investigation.
most likely scenario, a nutcase pilot that commited suicide.
every pilot I know is a dignified professional who would never associate with pilots-for-911.
they were muzzies ya know.    

[billy_56081]

Bugeye a guy who doesn't know what stall is is tryin to tell us about "compression" and Aerodaynamic design. I remember some fellow who was talkng about a "4000 watt death ray" when one looked on his link, this "4000 watt death ray" was a kit you assembled yourself, and get this it ran on AA batteries. 
 
 

[BUGEYE]

 

I guess there's some kind of conspiray web site on anything that goes on.
I can't say much about many things, but I know commercial aircraft.
thick air was mentioned as being a bad thing, but winter air is more dense "thicker" and gives the plane much more lift than than summer air.
a large plane lands at about 150mph, give or take, and the pilot has full control.
in fact, when he gets a few yards from the concrete, he's kinda gliding along on a cushion of air.
when on that cushion, he has to stay alert so he doesn't kinda slide to the side.
the hardest part of flying is the landing. that's why the bad guys were only interested in the flying part, not the takeoff or landing.  the actual flying part is easy.

[billy_56081]

Bugeye, we have brought up ground effect before, I don't think he understands it.
 
I still wonder why someone who was promoting the "truth" would make a video where the crowd is staged? It kind of takes away from his credibility.

[BUGEYE]

hey, you're better than me at cut&paste.  yes, they are a fly-by-night outfit, and nobody who knows the truth would go beyond that first lie. "egypt air 990"
I know many more pilots than is on your list and none that I still meet up with believe this stuff.
and no, the government didn't tell me anything.
my wife and I are friends with the former NTSB head for the southeast .  I'm not sure about publishing his name, though he's been retired for a couple of years. we've discussed everything from a local crash of a piper to 9-11.
I don't know why people take different slants on things, but they they do. but I have been there, done that. 
most of what you pasted is a complete fabrication by people that are clearly dillusional.
like the videos I watched yesterday. this kind of thing is meant for people who are ignorant of reality so they can be brought into the fold.
unlike conspiracy sites, I have no agenda, I love talking airplanes and when I see something that is obviously a deliberate fabrication, I feel like I should tell what I know.
bear in mind that I am speaking of the people at pilots-for-911, nothing personal.
you don't own that site, do you ?

[billy_56081]

Bugeye, we have brought up ground effect before, I don't think he understands it.
 
I still wonder why someone who was promoting the "truth" would make a video where the crowd is staged? It kind of takes away from his credibility.

.
Deflecture again....no discussion of ground affect here...you're trying to 'slide' the thread....people are on to this....TM7

Ah if you knew what grounf effect was you would know that bugeye WAS speaking about it in a previous thread! No deflecture, only continuing part of the discussion.

[BUGEYE]

Billy, I watched both videos and can't really say if it was two different locations.
however, if this guy was coming out with these conspiracy revelations, you would see the people oohing and ahing and giving knowing looks to the person next to them.
but those folks looked like they were bored to death.
it reminded me of a church I used to attend.
that proves to me that it was entirely BOGUS.

[BUGEYE]

all the talk about VMO, airfoils etc., is on that disinfo site to make people think that these play-pilots must be legit, but those are big words to describe simple things..... airfoil ? that's a wing.
VMO ? that's the "certified max speed at low altitude".  I told in an earlier post that the FAA certifies the airframe and they do it in a manner to make the airplane as safe as possible.
if the certified max speed at low altitude is 360mph, does that mean it'll break apart at 361mph ?
of course not.  if something on the plane fails, they can't just put on the breaks and stop, they fall out of the sky.  for this reason, the max certified limits are placed way, way, way below what the airframe can take.
the play-pilots at pilotsfor 911 try to make things sound complicated when actually they are not.
the psycological profile of a pilot is as important as his cockpit abilities.  any joe-blow can be taught to fly a plane, it's that simple.  what the airlines want is a cool head and steady hand in case of emergency.  "see Sully"
the people at conspiracy sites strike me as people who are very angry about something and just want to elevate themselves in the eyes of others.  that's my take.