9/11 wreckage

[CurtC]

@reef_shark

and lastly, it is fact that there are several cameras surrounding the pentagon, not to mention over route 27, on the marriott, and on local gas stations that surveill the area constantly. johnny from LA: not all cameras focus inside their building- what happened to all these tapes? why werent they released?

The tapes are in the possession of the FBI. There was an FOIA request for any that showed the plane or the crash, the four poor-quality ones are all we have. You seem to think that other tapes show more, but have not made a case for that.

@reef_shark

but we can see a hole in ring C. obviously something pentrated 3 walls, but we have no evidence of it?

You keep mentioning this three wall thing - what do you mean by that? The plane penetrated the outer strong wall, then a few pieces of debris managed to break through the relatively weak brick wall along A-E drive. That’s two walls, and one was very weak. Where do you come up with the third?

@reef_shark

I think there is a misconception here that I am supporting a “missile” theory, despite the fact that Rumsfeld and other ex-officials have said the same thing several times in fact. Food for thought again.

Rumsfeld made a comment about the plane being used as a missile. The plane was used as a missile!

@reef_shark

Ok sir. Let me ask you this, have you seen the records showing the turns of the plane, to the specific degree, relative to the time that passed? I’ve heard numerous pilots explain that these types of maneuvers couldnt even be physically possible. I will be back with specific degrees.

I have seen those records, and the only thing remarkable was how poorly the pilot made a steady descent and steady turn. It was fairly sloppy, but other than that there were no severe bank angles or anything.

@reef_shark

There are pictures, thatve been released, which show no such 75 ft hole immediately after impact. You need to check the timestamps.

Again, you’re relying on that picture of the hole in the Pentagon’s second story, which was about 15 feet with. The hole at the first story level was over 75 feet wide.

@reef_shark

Actually I have researched this. Even if a black box transponder is turned off, the ATC can still track it on the radar. It doesnt resemble a flock of geese either.

Actually, flight 77’s transponder was turned off in an area of the country with no primary radar coverage. Tracking on primary is normally exceedingly difficult, but in that case it would have been impossible. The next time a controller saw it was when it appeared in Washington D.C. airspace, just five minutes or so before impact.

@reef_shark

So you’re sure Dick Cheney didn’t refuse any orders to intercept a plane 50 miles out? Then 30? and so on???

I’m sure. Cheney was asked about shoot-down orders in regards to flight 93, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. The whole conversation about 50 miles out, 30 miles out, etc., took place a good half-hour after flight 77 had crashed.

@Johnny_L.A

So the last contact was at approximately 0927:18. It took nearly half an hour from last contact to the point where the pilot of an F-16 that happened to be close enough to intercept and investigate to attempt to make contact with the Learjet.

Check your time zones - it actually took an hour and 20 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart’s Learjet. The first time of your cite was in EDT, the second was in CDT. And this, by the way reef shark, was by an F-16 that was already in the air and unarmed.

[Johnny_L.A]

@CurtC

Check your time zones - it actually took an hour and 20 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart’s Learjet. The first time of your cite was in EDT, the second was in CDT. And this, by the way reef shark, was by an F-16 that was already in the air and unarmed.

:smack: You’re right. I missed that. But as you say, it took even longer than I said it did – and much longer than the 40 minutes reef shark is complaining about.

[CannyDan]

Back to WTC crumbling to dust, if we may…

Perhaps a better illustration for the non-technical mind would be a comparison of the magnitude of energy released in the collapse to some other common metaphor or measurement. As the building(s) collapsed, the potential energy of all that concrete and steel standing above the sidewalk was converted into kinetic energy, and then ultimately to heat. (Or so my possibly incorrect understanding has it.) So, how much energy was that, anyway?

(I’m a biologist-- I can probably dredge up enough of my old physics courses to calculate the energy released when an object of mass *a *is released from a height *y *and falls to the ground through the good offices of our friend gravity. But I could never even begin to calculate this for a building of unknown mass and which has parts (near the top) that fall a considerable distance, and other parts (near the bottom) that fall much less distance, with a continuum between. But somebody out there in Straight Dopeland surely can.)

I’m pretty confident, given the results, that there’s a hefty heap of Joules here. How does that number compare to, say, a firecracker? An artillery shell? An atomic weapon?

If we could say to those potential CT’ers “The simple collapse of WTC-1 released energy comparable to [guess for illustration] the payload of a dozen B29s in WW2” [/guess], we might help them to understand why the effect was powdered building.

Or maybe not. (But I myself would like to know anyway.)

[Skywatcher]

@CannyDan

I’m pretty confident, given the results, that there’s a hefty heap of Joules here. How does that number compare to, say, a firecracker? An artillery shell? An atomic weapon?

If we could say to those potential CT’ers “The simple collapse of WTC-1 released energy comparable to [guess for illustration] the payload of a dozen B29s in WW2” [/guess], we might help them to understand why the effect was powdered building.

Or maybe not. (But I myself would like to know anyway.)

The Bazant paper says that amount of concrete dust produced would have required the equivalent of 158 tons of TNT per tower, placed into holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall.

[CannyDan]

@Lute Skywatcher

The Bazant paper says that amount of concrete dust produced would have required the equivalent of 158 tons of TNT per tower, placed into holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall.

Maybe it is inevitable to envision this only in terms of what it would take to destroy the building(s). And my own comparisons to explosives are at fault in this regard as well.

But the amount of energy released by the simple falling of that much masonry and steel must have been truly huge. If F=ma, then we have tonnes and tonnes and tonnes times 9.8. Or something. My gut says that the real answer is an enormous number.

I guess I could post the query to GQ, but it seems to me the answer would be useful here.

[puppygod]

@CannyDan

Back to WTC crumbling to dust, if we may…

Perhaps a better illustration for the non-technical mind would be a comparison of the magnitude of energy released in the collapse to some other common metaphor or measurement. As the building(s) collapsed, the potential energy of all that concrete and steel standing above the sidewalk was converted into kinetic energy, and then ultimately to heat. (Or so my possibly incorrect understanding has it.) So, how much energy was that, anyway?

(I’m a biologist-- I can probably dredge up enough of my old physics courses to calculate the energy released when an object of mass *a *is released from a height *y *and falls to the ground through the good offices of our friend gravity. But I could never even begin to calculate this for a building of unknown mass and which has parts (near the top) that fall a considerable distance, and other parts (near the bottom) that fall much less distance, with a continuum between. But somebody out there in Straight Dopeland surely can.)

I’m pretty confident, given the results, that there’s a hefty heap of Joules here. How does that number compare to, say, a firecracker? An artillery shell? An atomic weapon?

If we could say to those potential CT’ers “The simple collapse of WTC-1 released energy comparable to [guess for illustration] the payload of a dozen B29s in WW2” [/guess], we might help them to understand why the effect was powdered building.

Or maybe not. (But I myself would like to know anyway.)

Actually, I think that all we need is how high was center of mass (I guess somewhere under halfway of building) before and after, and how heavy building was. Since WTC was 417 meters high and compressed to approximately six stories high, we can assume difference was something under 200 meters. Now, we need mass of building materials to calculate energy. Anybody got a cite? Nothing on wiki.

[CannyDan]

@puppygod

Actually, I think that all we need is how high was center of mass (I guess somewhere under halfway of building) before and after, and how heavy building was. Since WTC was 417 meters high and compressed to approximately six stories high, we can assume difference was something under 200 meters. Now, we need mass of building materials to calculate energy. Anybody got a cite? Nothing on wiki.

Does this help?

“The clean-up effort was slow going – the crew had to proceed carefully, and they had to move a lot of debris, truckload by truckload, to a Staten Island landfill. When the clean-up was finished, in May 2002, the workers had moved 108,000 truckloads of debris – around 1.8 million tons of material.” cite

[puppygod]

@CannyDan

Does this help?

“The clean-up effort was slow going – the crew had to proceed carefully, and they had to move a lot of debris, truckload by truckload, to a Staten Island landfill. When the clean-up was finished, in May 2002, the workers had moved 108,000 truckloads of debris – around 1.8 million tons of material.” cite

Not much, but lets try some calculations for fun. My understanding is that 1.8 mln ton is from all buildings in the area, including debris from underground etc. Well, at least we have upper number. If those 1.8 mln was from twin towers only and from above ground level only, and if twin towers center of gravity was somewhere on 200 m above ground, then it will release 3528 GJ of energy collapsing. That equals 0.843 kt, if I didn’t fumble calculations. Assuming conservative estimation that actual mass of one tower was 10% of total mass of debris removed, it will still release equivalent of approximately hundred ton of TNT in energy collapsing. Most of it as noise, shockwave, compressing/breaking materials, heat etc.

[CannyDan]

@puppygod

Not much, but lets try some calculations for fun. My understanding is that 1.8 mln ton is from all buildings in the area, including debris from underground etc. Well, at least we have upper number. If those 1.8 mln was from twin towers only and from above ground level only, and if twin towers center of gravity was somewhere on 200 m above ground, then it will release 3528 GJ of energy collapsing. That equals 0.843 kt, if I didn’t fumble calculations. Assuming conservative estimation that actual mass of one tower was 10% of total mass of debris removed, it will still release equivalent of approximately hundred ton of TNT in energy collapsing. Most of it as noise, shockwave, compressing/breaking materials, heat etc.

Excellent! Now we are getting somewhere!

If I read this right, you calculate a possible upper limit of more than THREE THOUSAND GIGA JOULES, or THREE QUARTERS OF A KILOTON of TNT?

The conservative estimation of 10% for one tower seems low to me, but still you get a result of (ballpark) a hundred tons of TNT.

I’ll note that my example used the B-29 ‘Superfortress’ bomber, which had a capacity of ten tons of bombs. Let us neglect the fact that a bomb’s weight is not all from the explosive, just keeping this in our “orders of magnitude” guestimations.

So the energy released ***merely by the fall ***of a World Trade Center building was on the order of magnitude of the total bomb capacity of 10 of World War II’s heavy bombers.

I think we’ve come up with a pretty good illustration for people of non-technical bent, to help them visualize the reasons for all that dust (and no 40 story steel beams).

Thanks!

Anybody want to confirm, deny, or amplify puppygod’s numbers?

[puppygod]

It’s VERY rough estimate and may be off by order of magnitude or two, but I’m pretty sure we are talking about equivalent of multiple tons of TNT here, that went among others into powdered concrete and bent girders.

[Ale]

@CannyDan

Excellent! Now we are getting somewhere!

If I read this right, you calculate a possible upper limit of more than THREE THOUSAND GIGA JOULES, or THREE QUARTERS OF A KILOTON of TNT?

The conservative estimation of 10% for one tower seems low to me, but still you get a result of (ballpark) a hundred tons of TNT.

I’ll note that my example used the B-29 ‘Superfortress’ bomber, which had a capacity of ten tons of bombs. Let us neglect the fact that a bomb’s weight is not all from the explosive, just keeping this in our “orders of magnitude” guestimations.

So the energy released ***merely by the fall ***of a World Trade Center building was on the order of magnitude of the total bomb capacity of 10 of World War II’s heavy bombers.

I think we’ve come up with a pretty good illustration for people of non-technical bent, to help them visualize the reasons for all that dust (and no 40 story steel beams).

Thanks!

Anybody want to confirm, deny, or amplify puppygod’s numbers?

I think that what you did was give a “cite” to some CT mental case to think that the WTC was brought down by a squadron of B-29s or a small atomic bomb planted in the buildings. :smack:

[Skywatcher]

@Ale

I think that what you did was give a “cite” to some CT mental case to think that the WTC was brought down by … a small atomic bomb planted in the buildings. :smack:

I’ve actually seen such a mental case on the IMDb boards.

[straight_man]

Wait, I’m getting confused here. Could someone (preferably not reef shark) clarify how extensive the damage was to the Pentagon, and what hole was caused by what? It’s just that, between the rebuttals and rerebuttals and wild mayhem, I’m having a hard time understanding what’s being said.

Incidentally, JXJohns, I think it’s fair to say that reef shark would be open for criticism at this point either for staying or for going, and AFAIK, there is no third option. Well, other than conceding the point, but let’s be realistic here.

[CannyDan]

@Ale

I think that what you did was give a “cite” to some CT mental case to think that the WTC was brought down by a squadron of B-29s or a small atomic bomb planted in the buildings. :smack:

Because we all know that it was B-29s that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan!! Right?

And because everyone in New York agrees that what they saw over Manhattan that day was a flight of B-29s!! Right?

So the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 was caused by the shade of FDR who ordered an air strike from 1945, to cover up his involvement in Pearl Harbor!!

Well, I guess it’s settled, then. My work here is done.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@CannyDan

So the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 was caused by the shade of FDR who ordered an air strike from 1945, to cover up his involvement in Pearl Harbor!!

My God… it’s all connected!

[reef_shark]

@CannyDan

Because we all know that it was B-29s that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan!! Right?

And because everyone in New York agrees that what they saw over Manhattan that day was a flight of B-29s!! Right?

So the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 was caused by the shade of FDR who ordered an air strike from 1945, to cover up his involvement in Pearl Harbor!!

Well, I guess it’s settled, then. My work here is done.

This issue is still not settled. The ‘war on terror’ doesnt look like it will ever end. Surprisingly, Pearl Harbor does connect with 9/11, because both were false flag ops. The Gulf of Tonkin and USS Maine are proven examples now. Almost every major war since the French Revolution can be traced back to the same groups of evil people. Thanks for your input, but this forum really failed me. God bless

[simster]

@reef_shark

This issue is still not settled. The ‘war on terror’ doesnt look like it will ever end. Surprisingly, Pearl Harbor does connect with 9/11, because both were false flag ops. The Gulf of Tonkin and USS Maine are proven examples now. Almost every major war since the French Revolution can be traced back to the same groups of evil people. Thanks for your input, but this forum really failed me. God bless

I do not think the failure is with this forum -

[Covered_In_Bees]

Woah. He joined in the year the thread was active but still managed to take three years to respond?

[Der_Trihs]

@Covered_In_Bees

Woah. He joined in the year the thread was active but still managed to take three years to respond?

He’s actually the poster who started the thread.

[MarcusF]

@reef_shark

<snip>
Almost every major war since the French Revolution can be traced back to the same groups of evil people.

My God! Not only evil but able to live for more than 200 years! It all ties together: alternative medicine, Big Pharma, the French Revolution, Kennedy, Aliens, 9/11 … Why didn’t we see this before