check out post 316 of this thread and the posts that follow it, We have had an ever so convenient tangent from a very interesting discussion. shall we continue it?
Note that MY post included numbers that could be verified if anyone wanted to actually consult the blue prints that are available on-line. The numbers don't lie, the wall of the WTC tower(s) was less than half windows by area calculation.
Repost of previous INFORMATION My my calculation 3.6 sq meter for each wall segment that is per window and window area of 1.1 sq meter. Where did you get "mostly windows" ?
and this is meant to imply that an "eyeball" estimate is more accurate than the figures, GIVE ME A BREAK!
No, it is to give you a visual reference to the claim. Just calm down and think rationally before you post, there is no need for such histrionics.
So the figures don't lie, the fact is that the statement made by whoever first posted the "mostly windows" comment, has been proven false, and therefore at least part of the support for the ghost like penetration of "FLT175" has been negated. The concept of an airliner penetrating a wall as was alleged, is just plane mad! OH, but the airplane was going SOOOO fast! oh my, is AMERICA that far gone?
You seem to be alone in your incredulity. I debate 9/11 truth on many sites and you're the only one in my memory that has questioned that fact. There was one other on Debate Politics, but he was obviously crazy. I'm not trying to associate you with that individual, but it obvious in his case. I suggest you look further into what you people call 'debunker' literature and get more of a balanced view of the subject. Just note the similarities between 9/11 and the Empire State crash of 1945: Is 9/11 truth that far gone?
"obviously crazy" Right, and as for the similarities between the crash into the Empire state building & 9/11, VERY slim to none, the fact is that the aircraft was a military plane not to be confused with a modern commercial airliner and the bomber only penetrated up to the wing-root unlike the alleged airliner crashes on 9/11 with in three separate cases the airliner penetrated completely into the building virtually disappearing. and also, for the record, the outside wall of the WTC skyscrapers was more than 2/3 steel to less than 1/3 open space by area.
If you knew this individual, you could not come to any other conclusion, I mean flying orbs and HAARP space beams and the like...just nuts. Me, I'm far too rational to entertain such nonsense. Look Bob, I'm not here to make a fool of you, or to ridicule you. You can obviously think, and I'm interested in any valid points you make, however, when I disagree I state my case. I can be as wrong as the next person, as can you or anybody else for that matter, but I don't see the need to make it personal, so I wouldn't resort to such tactics without provocation. Note the patterns and impressions, after all, you're the one arguing from incredulity about the impressions left in the edifice. My point is why the incredulity? As a similar phenomenon was witnessed on the Empire State crash. The differences in building materials and aircraft mass are obvious. If you take your line, one could argue that the WTC façade was not as strong as the Empire State, and subject to far greater forces in the impact. But apart from the impressions, we can treat it as a Red Herring if you like. And? I'm not contesting that. What issue do you have with the Purdue simulation? http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
The window openings between the girders was 20 inches the girders were 16 inches wide It ain't rocket science,Bob
I haven't actually done the maths and took his point at face value. I think the Purdue simulation illustrates how the aircraft penetrated the walls rather well.
comparatively speaking,I look at the perimeter wall as more akin to a net,than the solid wall Bob does.
So do I, similar to a lattice, and the old pic with the sun behind the buildings speaks volumes. I know this was taken while the building was under construction, but it illustrates the point.
First of all the drawings are available on-line, and we are talking AREA here not single dimension. and in area, the open space for the window constitutes less than 1/3 the total AREA. The Purdue "simulation" is a cartoon! The didn't publish any source data for the bit, and when asked for the source data, they claimed to not have it, ( like, my dog ate my homework.... ) Lets face it, they KNOW they have published crap, and there is no way to cover-up the fact that the cartoon was produced as justification for the alleged airliner doing what it was alleged to have done.
It's an animation Bob, a computer constructed re enactment done dozens of times in airliner crashes,calling it a 'cartoon' shows just how bankrupt your position is. And you're doing the math wrong,there is more area for window openings than girder space each floor. Fact
Tons of an aircraft hitting a wall won't leave any trace? LOL. So, then WHAT left those traces? If an aircraft cannot do it, tons of it traveling at hundreds of miles an hour, the time I drove my car through a brick wall, with steel studs, should not have happened. I wish I had not ended up in jail for being drunk and driving through the side of a brick store, for it should have been impossible for me to do it. Come on man, you are just too far out there. So, let us look at what happens to a modern building when a very small aircraft hits one... http://www.fortwayne.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? AID=/JG/20100218/NEWS03/100219543 Now, imagine an airliner hitting that same building.... I am with you on 9-11 being allowed to happened, and at least bld 7 was brought down by demolition. For office fires have never brought down a building like that in the history of fires. And never will again. As the architects have certain proof to support their contentions. But you gotta get off of these phantom planes, unless as I said before you are paid to keep the real conspiracy in fantasy, nutland. The hijackers flew those two planes into those towers. My brother knows a family personally who lost one of their parents in that crash. It happened. But what also probably happened is that either this attack was allowed to happen, or those muslims had the supernatural power of Allah bringing those buildings down. I will not believe Allah did it, so that leaves a conspiracy in place. My brother nor that family he knows are in on your fake conspiracy theory. Impossible. So, I think you are paid to spread disinformation, to keep people thinking that all who believed the attack was allowed to happen, are actually a bit off in the head. I think that most of the people who are "out there" in a nonreality are there to do what you are doing on this forum. No one in their right mind would think the depths you have tried to take a simple conspiracy could ever happen. I believe the 2200 architects. I believe the 9-11 commission was a whitewash, as the Warren Commission was. I believe someone, a small group, wanted to invade Iraq, and the middle east in general, for that was already laid out in the New American Century, by that Neo Con think tank. I think our gov't, in the high places is corrupt and criminal. I think they are treasonous bastards, not only in this, but in the hollowing out of the middle class, and the deindustrialization of my Country, in order to max out profits and send more income to the top elites. And so I think they allowed the 9-11 attacks to take place, and even helped them, so the disaster would be tremendous. But they used an already planned attack which 13 other nations tried to warn us about, and we did nothing. I think the Saudis financed the attack. I think gov't knows this for a fact, but swept it under the rug. And that is the real conspiracy here, not phantom commercial aircraft, but real ones, with real people losing their lives on those craft. Those dead people are real, my friend. Whereas, I do not think you are.
That is a great pic, which shows the basic structure of those two buildings. See my post with the link about the small aircraft the guy crashed into the building that housed the IRS in Texas. Personally, the only concern, the only red flag here involves Bld 7, which was not hit, and which supposed office fires brought down exactly like a planned demolition. Which has never happened in the history of tall building fires. And which eye witnesses personally saw the lobby taken out before the building imploded, coming down perfectly. Then you had the BBC reporter, with Bld 7 over her left shoulder, reporting that Bld 7 just came down. Which did happen around an hour later. This is impossible, and another red flag that should matter. Then you have the 2200 professional architects and scientists that show Bld 7 could only have been brought down my controlled demolition. Bld 7 is the smoking gun here. It is the anomaly, and there is just too much evidence that negates an office fire causing the implosion. The conspirators screwed up here, but the 9-11 commission worked hard to cover that screw up, up. The things that happened with Bld 7 doesn't happen in this universe, by the means the official story tries to put forth. Are all 2200 professionals village idiots? LOL.. Well, that would be just another coincidence. Far too many coincidences here.
Prove it by supplying your own figures, I already have and note that your original numbers only mention the horizontal dimension and the AREA has both width & height.
Whatever, I'm not interested in this argument. The façade was a lattice framework and that can't be ignored. Oh, come on. Surely you have a better response than just attacks on the faculty. I expect a little more from you than that low caliber response.
There were a lot of precedents that day, and that is an argument from incredulity and not valid. Are you sure about this claim? Source? Oh, come on. That is simply a misinterpretation of the announcement from the fire dept. There are always misreported facts when an event is unfolding. To examine that claim logically, do people really believe that 'da bad guyz' would make such a stupid error in a plot that has too many facets to be even plausible anyway? Not likely. Ok, there are NOT 2200 professional architects and scientists in AE911T, that is a myth, and they haven't 'proved' any such thing. No, the evidence is paltry and there is no physical evidence to support the irrational claims of a controlled demolition. The hypothesis is absurd. Did you really think this through? Why 7WTC? The whole claim is irrational. Again, that is only an opinion and many faculties disagree with that notion. Why have so many Structural Engineering publications printed articles in support of the NIST report? Are all 2200 members professionals? No. Many are just normal people who have signed an old petition and some no longer agree with the position of AE911T. Members of ISF have researched the membership of AE911T only to find the numbers are misrepresented and inflated. Furthermore, this is an argument from authority. I can show you links to approx. 50 peer reviewed articles and papers from various faculties around the globe that disagree with AE911T. http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/ No, it isn't a coincidence, it is fraud. No. If you are truly interested in researching 7WTC and not just hatin' on da' gubmint, this link explains many of the myths surrounding 7WTC's collapse. It's always best to get a balanced view before making up one's mind. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
First of all.... The cartoon doesn't address the variables in the alleged airliner strike on the WTC towers, the fact is that if the airliner were to hit with the nose of said aircraft dead center between two floors the outcome would be different than if the airliner struck with the nose of the aircraft centered level with a deck, note the spandrel plates that connected the box columns would have resisted penetration much more than if the aircraft simply had to knock out box columns in the middle of a floor. The chance of both "FLT11" & "FLT175" performing exactly the same stunt, that is striking the wall in the optimum way so as to promote penetration, is asking a LOT, don't you think?
To believe the faculty at Purdue weren't aware of the variables is asking a LOT, don't you think? Remember, no other faculty around then world has challenged their findings.
