Engine design and "Chemtrails"

[Donald Traill 8]

Jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel beams; but plenty hot enough to weaken them critically. Even in fires in high rises that had not been hit by airplanes there are many cases of firefighters giving up and evacuating because of the risk of the building collapsing. Such as the Meridian building in Philadelphia.

 

The type of construction used throughout the World Trade Center has now been banned. Trusses can give great strength at low mass, but are only as strong as the weakest part of the structure. Buildings need high mass to survive fire.

 

One of the floors collapsed at each of the three WTC buildings, then the floor below it had to support two floors and collapsed immediately. And so on. There is no reserve of strength in a steel truss floor.

 

Donald

[kamaz74 81]

Is mayonnaise an instrument?

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, I can confirm that Aliens burn at a temperature hot enough to melt steel beams...

[HighBypass 2,339]

... and Aliens have acid for blood too

[Holdit 551]

... and Aliens have acid for blood too

 

Sorry, but Elvis has assured me that that's not true. I bumped into him the other day. He was having a picnic with Lord Lucan on a grassy knoll...

[HighBypass 2,339]

.. ah, so he's got back from flying the Lancaster bomber to the Moon then?

[stans 703]

Ok, I think this has gone on long enough.

 

 

 

What you saw was swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

[3Green 80]

Study the physics behind the 911 collapses.  
Physics has no feelings and doesn't lie.

- The laws of physics can't be altered; you cannot dismiss Newton’s laws of motion.  
- Architects and Engineers design and build high rises using physics.  Architects & Engineers for 911.
- The mass of 15 floors to fully destroy the bottom 90 floors (that were undamaged) disobeys basic physics.
- There was simply not enough kinetic energy, momentum and inertia to destroy the bottom portions of the trade towers.

And if you don't believe the towers fell under 11 seconds, read the flawed NIST report.





Basic physics.
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-physics-quiz/

RJ

[Holdit 551]

"And if you don't believe the towers fell under 11 seconds, read the flawed NIST report."

 

 

The "flawed" NIST report? The one that was full of misinformation? The one contradicted the laws of physics...that NIST report?

 

Hilarious...you couldn't make this up. Oh..wait...

[3Green 80]

 

 

Newton wouldn’t be able to reconcile this tilting top with the symmetrical descent that followed.
With the top tilting at approximately 23 degrees, how could it be exerting a uniform, symmetrical pressure on the floors below?
How could all of the building’s 47 core columns fail uniformly given that the destruction wasn’t symmetrical when it started.

Objects in nature will take the path of least resistance. 

The top section should have fallen off too the left, through the air (path of least resistance).
Instead, if took the path of most resistance and fell into the remaining structure in under 10 seconds.

The computer models NIST used to explain the WTC7 collapse are classified.
WTC7 was a 47 story high rise that fell in 6.5 seconds (near free fall speed).

 

 

 

 

"Lucky" Larry explains the collapse of WTC7.
Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Larry Silverstein used the term "PULL IT" (a demolition term).
How can you "Pull" a building during the middle of a terrorist attack?

 

 

 

 

Here Larry explains how he started planning the new WTC-7 building back in April 2000, one year and five months before the attacks.
“We got the designs.  And the first design meeting was in April of 2000. And construction began shortly thereafter, in 2002.”

Why would you plan a new WTC-7 when the old WTC-7 was still standing?

RJ

[HighBypass 2,339]

The reason the top 8 floors of that building couldn't pulverize the rest even with explosives is because it's RUSSIAN. Everyone knows that in Russia, stuff is built solid, tank-like, or to coin the ubiquitous phrase "like a brick outhouse"

[Chock 17,769]

That Russian building had some explosives put in its columns (just enough to break them). Whereas the WTC had an airliner - loaded with fuel, baggage and passengers - fly into it at about 500 mph. In fact, if you look at photographs and video of the aircraft which hit the WTC just before impact, the wings are being overstressed to the point of almost breaking, particularly the one which was put into a steep left hand bank in order to hit the tower, that's how fast those things were going, because the guys flying them didn't give a crap about overstressing those airframes.

A Boeing 767 weighs nearly 300,000lbs, even when not loaded with passengers and fuel, so we are talking about something which put an incredible amount of kinetic energy into that building when it impacted. It is estimated that the aeroplanes which hit the WTC towers had about 10,000 gallons of fuel on board when they hit, so those planes imparted approximately 2 x 10⁹ joules of energy on the building when they hit, plus a further 1.75 x 10¹² joules of energy from the fuel they were carrying at the time of the impact, and this isn't even considering the additional weakening which the subsequent fires would have also caused. That is vastly more energy than any explosive charges used in any controlled demolition ever impart. And WTC building 7, whilst not directly impacted by an airliner, was nevertheless hit by debris from those impacts and the collapsing buildings, as a result, a massive fuel storage tank in the building's roof area was set on fire, the structure was weakned by all that, and that is what caused the collapse.

Yes it is true that buildings such as the WTC do take into account the possibility of an aircraft hitting them, and being able to survive such a hit, but that consideration is for a accidental occurrence of such a collision, i.e. at landing approach speeds, not something being flown at Vne deliberately into the building with the actual intent to cause damage. Moreover, given the era that the WTC towers were designed, it would have been considering an impact with a typical large airliner of that period, i.e a DC-8 or B707 with much smaller turbojet engines, not a widebodied B767 with two massive and incredibly heavy high bypass turbofan engines going into the thing at speeds getting near to the thick end of Mach 1.

And as for the notion of the WTC being brought down by a controlled demolition, that is just laughable, especially so if you know anything about demolition with explosives. You'd have to have teams of people planting charges and prepping three of the biggest buildings in NYC. Prepping demolition charges on a large building is a process which takes literally weeks of work, it involves the drilling and cutting of bore holes in the structure so that charges can be placed inside columns in order to blast cut them, not to mention stripping much of the building's interior out. It's noisy, messy and has to be carried out with immense care and precision because one is working with explosives. And if you've ever seen such a building when it has been prepped in that way, you will know that there is wiring all over the place and considerable evidence or all the drilling and cutting which has occured. The idea that it could be done covertly is utter nonsense.

 

Yet we are supposed to believe this massive undertaking could have been achieved covertly whilst the building was in daily use, with no office worker in any of those buildings, nor any security staff, nor visitors to those buildings spotting any of that going on, or anything even remotely suspicious, and this in a building which has massive security by virtue of it having been bombed once before? It's beyond ridiculous to even suggest that could be achieved, and even if it could have been achieved, to what purpose? Flying some aeroplanes into a some famous landmarks in a major city, killing hundreds of people in the process is not dramatic enough for the Government's supposed use of it as a pretext for their hidden agendas?

And as for all that 'freefall' cobblers, watch the videos of the collapses, they are nowhere near freefall speed, not even close. One look at the falling debris in comparison to the descending cloud of the main collapse will confirm that. The falling debris is indeed dropping at acceleration due to gravity speed, the main structure is collapsing at a far slower speed, and anyone who claims otherwise is being disingenuous to say the least. And any claim that we can see explosive squibs blowing out windows is bollocks as well, that's the column of increased air pressure forced downwards inside the building, pushing debris and dust clouds through windows which are broken by impacts.

The attacks on the WTC were what they were; some religious fanatics flying planes into them because they believed their magic sky fairy told them to do so. No amount of 'video analysis' by paranoid self appointed 'experts' is going to change that. I'll be the first person to agree that Governments do indeed get up to some sneaky stuff, but the destruction of the WTC buildings and the tragic deaths of nearly 3,000 people, including one of my friends, was not some covert Government conspiracy, and anyone who says it was, because they saw some video on youtube, is talking out of their arse.

[Holdit 551]

 

The attacks on the WTC were what they were; some religious fanatics flying planes into them because they believed their magic sky fairy told them to do so. No amount of 'video analysis' by paranoid self appointed 'experts' is going to change that. I'll be the first person to agree that Governments do indeed get up to some sneaky stuff, but the destruction of the WTC buildings and the tragic deaths of nearly 3,000 people, including one of my friends, was not some covert Government conspiracy, and anyone who says it was, because they saw some video on youtube, is talking out of their arse.

 

Agree with everything you said and I've said a fair bit of it myself, but just to clarify one point...I don't believe that 911 was an inside job, but I'm not saying it definitely, with 100% certaintly, wasn't. What I am saying is that nothing the truthers have put forward so far is proof of such a conspiracy, no matter how much they would like it to be i.e. so much it hurts...

 

And just in case that makes me sound like a potential believer, I file things like the existence of God and the Egyptians being taught the art of pyramid-building by aliens in the same category. An interesting idea, with just the faint possibility that it could be true, but anyone who wants me to believe it will need to provide some pretty special and compelling evidence. Compelling evidence does not include nitpicking details, taking snippets of information out-of-context, bad science, or just plain old innuendo.

[3Green 80]

Very interesting to see peoples perception on this topic and how we find supporting concepts, to support your core belief, when you can't comprehend any other theory.

You can find many theories about how, who and “it's impossible" when you study this event.  
Individuals tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions.

A person who experiences inconsistency in their core beliefs, ideas or values, tends to become psychologically uncomfortable.  
To strive for internal consistency, the person is motivated to try to reduce the mental stress (discomfort) from occurring, by actively avoiding situations and information likely to increase the psychological discomfort.   
Cognitive dissonance can often have a powerful influence on one's behaviors, actions and will often become abusive, lashing out verbally when their world view is jeopardized.

Who and how was your perception formed about the events of 911?
Was it based on the laws of physics?
Was it based on your neighbor’s opinions?
Was it based on the Main Stream Media ("Fake News")?
Was it based on your own intellect?
Was it based on reasoning (common sense, it's impossible to have happened any other way)?
Was it based on your aviation expertise?

Your perception or core beliefs are formed around something that influenced you.

The world is a more complex than we can imagine.  Accepting this fact is a good first step to humbling oneself, dropping our preconceived notions and accepting the momentary pain of being incorrect.

Understandings that shape your perception of the world: do you really know those things?
Do you have proof for those foundational beliefs, or did you believe what you were told?

 

RJ

 

[n4gix 4,947]

Gentlemen (and any ladies present), this thread has wandered far, far off course from the topic of Engine design and "Chemtrails"

 

Please return to the original topic. Thank you!