The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


For Kikapu

Feel free to talk about anything that you want.

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Get Real! » Tue Jul 26, 2016 11:47 am

B25 wrote:GR is talking BS if he thinks an aluminium plane is stronger that high tensile steel and reinforced concrete.

My good man even duck’s feathers can be lethal if they hit your body at a certain speed.

Force of Impact = Mass × Acceleration
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 40512
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:20 pm

Get Real! wrote:
B25 wrote:GR is talking BS if he thinks an aluminium plane is stronger that high tensile steel and reinforced concrete.

My good man even duck’s feathers can be lethal if they hit your body at a certain speed.

Force of Impact = Mass × Acceleration


It was not high tensile steel, it was a particular grade of construction grade steel There was NO or very little, reinforced concrete.

Your theory with the duck feather is correct BUT ...... only in a vacuum. Newton's laws of motion ...... in a vacuum a duck feather will continue to accelerate under the pull of gravity as there is no opposing force! Add air to the equation and the feather almost stops dead in its tracks. Just one of the mysteries of 9/11 that has never been explained!

How did all three buildings manage to accelerate at almost free fall speed and find the energy to destroy the central columns, the floors, the outer walls etc. to a pile of rubble where nothing more than 11m long was found? Why did we not see these massive steel columns poking out of the pile of rubble? They were uncompromised and were designed to support the whole structure ..... much of which was now a huge dust cloud and shredded outer wall lattice facing panels! It took energy to achieve this, where did this extra energy come from without slowing down the collapse?

Seriously, how would you explain that, assuming Newton knew what he was talking about? :?:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Get Real! » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:51 pm

Robin Hood wrote:
Get Real! wrote:
B25 wrote:GR is talking BS if he thinks an aluminium plane is stronger that high tensile steel and reinforced concrete.

My good man even duck’s feathers can be lethal if they hit your body at a certain speed.

Force of Impact = Mass × Acceleration


It was not high tensile steel, it was a particular grade of construction grade steel There was NO or very little, reinforced concrete.

Your theory with the duck feather is correct BUT ...... only in a vacuum. Newton's laws of motion ...... in a vacuum a duck feather will continue to accelerate under the pull of gravity as there is no opposing force! Add air to the equation and the feather almost stops dead in its tracks. Just one of the mysteries of 9/11 that has never been explained!

How did all three buildings manage to accelerate at almost free fall speed and find the energy to destroy the central columns, the floors, the outer walls etc. to a pile of rubble where nothing more than 11m long was found? Why did we not see these massive steel columns poking out of the pile of rubble? They were uncompromised and were designed to support the whole structure ..... much of which was now a huge dust cloud and shredded outer wall lattice facing panels! It took energy to achieve this, where did this extra energy come from without slowing down the collapse?

Seriously, how would you explain that, assuming Newton knew what he was talking about? :?:

I only participated in this thread to counter that author’s assertion that the plane couldn’t cut through the side of the skyscraper because I felt it was bullshit but I won’t get into who or what was behind 9/11 because there can never be a conclusion.
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 40512
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Sotos » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:59 pm

The building was designed (1964) to take the impact of a fully fuelled Boeing 707 travelling at a speed of around 600 mph.(23,000 US gallons of Jet A1). The largest passenger jet aircraft made at the time of building design, but very little difference between the 707 and the 767.


That was in theory. Obviously they never actually tested this theory by building a tower and crashing a 707 on it. This theory was only tested in 2001... and it failed.

How did all three buildings manage to accelerate at almost free fall speed and find the energy to destroy the central columns, the floors, the outer walls etc. to a pile of rubble where nothing more than 11m long was found? Why did we not see these massive steel columns poking out of the pile of rubble?


Because of the massive heat. The central core was heated for a long time, and since steal is a good conductor of heat the whole core was heated not just the upper portion. The heat weakened the whole core from top to bottom, and when the top floors started to collapse there was a cascading effect of greater and greater mass coming down on an already weakened structure.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10697
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Maximus » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:43 pm

Kikapu wrote:
Maximus wrote:look at the crash on one of the clips starting at 1:30 Sotos

The plane just seems to disappear right before impact.


The plane at 1:30 clip disappears behind the dome of another building before impacting the tower, and not that the plane disappeared before the impact with the tower. There is a difference.


I can accept that and will also add that many of these clips obscure the impact in some way, either from their angle of focus, objects in the way or the quality of the video or news network logos and overlays.

it might be a bit far fetched to say that this was all cgi generated however another clip to look at and ponder over which starts at 9:50 with what appears to be some footage taken from a helicopter at great distance. When zoomed out at the beginning of the clip, you dont see a plane in the sky. The picture zooms in closer and you still dont see a plane in the sky. Then it zooms in very close to the tower and a few seconds later a plane appears and impacts the second tower.
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Maximus » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:00 pm

Sotos wrote:
The building was designed (1964) to take the impact of a fully fuelled Boeing 707 travelling at a speed of around 600 mph.(23,000 US gallons of Jet A1). The largest passenger jet aircraft made at the time of building design, but very little difference between the 707 and the 767.


That was in theory. Obviously they never actually tested this theory by building a tower and crashing a 707 on it. This theory was only tested in 2001... and it failed.

How did all three buildings manage to accelerate at almost free fall speed and find the energy to destroy the central columns, the floors, the outer walls etc. to a pile of rubble where nothing more than 11m long was found? Why did we not see these massive steel columns poking out of the pile of rubble?


Because of the massive heat. The central core was heated for a long time, and since steal is a good conductor of heat the whole core was heated not just the upper portion. The heat weakened the whole core from top to bottom, and when the top floors started to collapse there was a cascading effect of greater and greater mass coming down on an already weakened structure.


I would counter that and say that most of the heat and energy was spent at the time of impact (when you see the flames / explosions). Most of the fuel in the planes wings was burnt then and most of the heat escaped from the inside of the building. So what remains, which is significantly less fuel can only burn at a max temperature of about 300-350 degrees C. To get to this temperature you need oxygen, which would not produce dark smoke. Think of a bunsen burner from science labs. When you see lots of dark smoke as we do here, it is a sign of oxygen deprivation. So the heat produced was not at max temperature first of all. Secondly, Steel melts at 1350 degrees C and loses about half its strength at about 600 degrees C. Therfore we can only assume that the steel lost about a quarter of its strength (maybe, as an upper estimate) around or in a reasonably near radius of the impact. Then, heat would probably not have caused the collumns to be weakened enough to cause the collapse.

Even if this was the case and the heat caused the collapse, then the building was not designed from the beginning to withstand even a fire and it is still not enough heat to melt the steel to leave very little trace of the collumns in the rubble.
Maximus
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4274
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:23 pm

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:46 pm

Sotos:
RH:
The building was designed (1964) to take the impact of a fully fuelled Boeing 707 travelling at a speed of around 600 mph.(23,000 US gallons of Jet A1). The largest passenger jet aircraft made at the time of building design, but very little difference between the 707 and the 767.

Sotos;
That was in theory. Obviously they never actually tested this theory by building a tower and crashing a 707 on it. This theory was only tested in 2001... and it failed.

That is a very weak answer. My house is designed to resist an earthquake to a given Richter scale, as are thousands of other structures in Cyprus but they have never been tested. Newton’s Laws are accepted as Laws but in fact they also have never been fully tested either.

The guys who designed these building are far smarter in their chosen field, than you and I will ever be. It is not like the medical profession, it is an exact science based on proven laws and very complex mathematics. So I would suggest that, as they say, it was designed to take the impact of a fully loaded 707.
RH:
How did all three buildings manage to accelerate at almost free fall speed and find the energy to destroy the central columns, the floors, the outer walls etc. to a pile of rubble where nothing more than 11m long was found? Why did we not see these massive steel columns poking out of the pile of rubble?

Sotos:
Because of the massive heat. The central core was heated for a long time, and since steal is a good conductor of heat the whole core was heated not just the upper portion. The heat weakened the whole core from top to bottom, and when the top floors started to collapse there was a cascading effect of greater and greater mass coming down on an already weakened structure.

With all due respect you are obviously not an engineer!

The aircraft contained 26,500(?) USG’s when full. We are talking now of an event that took maybe just about a second! When the 767 hit the building all that fuel erupted as liquid from the ruptured tanks in the wings and the belly of the aircraft.

Fact 1 - liquid fuel does not burn .... only the vapour will burn which is why the fuel is vapourised at high pressure when fed to the engine. When the liquid Kerosine (Jet A1) sprayed into the building it began to vapourise but a very large volume was still liquid. This is what burst out of the other side of the building and created the fire ball. What was left continued to vapourise and burn, whilst some of the liquid fuel entered the central lift shafts. Liquid only ever flows downhill under gravity. We know this happened because lifts that arrived at the ground floor from floors below the impact were full of badly burned bodies but no fire. The fire fighters in the ground floor lobby reported this.

Fact 2: The fuel fire on the impact floors lasted no more than a couple of minutes. After that it was an office type fire of poor combustion (black smoke) and thus of low temperature/heat. Certainly insufficient to cause the steel to melt or even soften.

Fact 3: Even under ideal combustion ratios (Air to fuel) to get maximum flame temperature, it would be far below the level where it would have very much affect on the integrity of the steel. There are pictures of survivors standing in the opening caused by the impact, with black smoke billowing out (= poor combustion); had your theory been correct, that would have been impossible. So the ‘heat’ theory cannot be supported.

Fact 4: For the cascade theory to be correct, at the time the structure started to collapse ALL 47 steel columns would have to fail simultaneously. (we are talking milliseconds) If you look at the information as to how the aircraft entered the building it crashed, not through the central column but through a corner of the central column and the corner of the building. The bulk of the wreckage and the liquid fuel, travelled mainly through open office space filled with desks and light partitions and erupted outside in the fire ball we all saw.

Therefore, even if all your other points were valid, the steel would have softened on one side far faster than the other side, and that other side would have suffered little or no impact damage. I think I am right that there was just over an hour between impact and collapse? Therefore ...... just common sense says, the building would have toppled toward the weaker side where the beams were failing due to this ‘massive heat’. It didn’t, it went straight down into its own footprint ...... and it happened not once ..... not twice ...... but three times in one day. It had never happened before and has not happened since. That is one hell of a coincidence! :roll:

Fact 5: For the floors to cascade one on top of the other (The pancake theory .... later retracted) each impact would slow the rate of acceleration. There was very little effect on the acceleration, they both collapsed at free fall speed, as did WTC7. This says there was no resistance to the fall ............ this suggests the central columns, all 47 of them in both the Twin Towers, had miraculously disappeared.

In addition, the floors were light concrete, you can gouge this stuff with your finger nails into a dust. That is what caused the huge clouds of grey/white dust. These floor pans twisted, and the white concrete powdered as the building distorted. The mass was hardly increasing at all.

Sorry Sotos ........... but the evidence says it did not and could not, have happened due to the events that you have described. It defies the universally accepted laws of physics. :wink: :|
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Robin Hood » Tue Jul 26, 2016 2:51 pm

Get Real! wrote:
Robin Hood wrote:
Get Real! wrote:
B25 wrote:GR is talking BS if he thinks an aluminium plane is stronger that high tensile steel and reinforced concrete.

My good man even duck’s feathers can be lethal if they hit your body at a certain speed.

Force of Impact = Mass × Acceleration


It was not high tensile steel, it was a particular grade of construction grade steel There was NO or very little, reinforced concrete.

Your theory with the duck feather is correct BUT ...... only in a vacuum. Newton's laws of motion ...... in a vacuum a duck feather will continue to accelerate under the pull of gravity as there is no opposing force! Add air to the equation and the feather almost stops dead in its tracks. Just one of the mysteries of 9/11 that has never been explained!

How did all three buildings manage to accelerate at almost free fall speed and find the energy to destroy the central columns, the floors, the outer walls etc. to a pile of rubble where nothing more than 11m long was found? Why did we not see these massive steel columns poking out of the pile of rubble? They were uncompromised and were designed to support the whole structure ..... much of which was now a huge dust cloud and shredded outer wall lattice facing panels! It took energy to achieve this, where did this extra energy come from without slowing down the collapse?

Seriously, how would you explain that, assuming Newton knew what he was talking about? :?:

I only participated in this thread to counter that author’s assertion that the plane couldn’t cut through the side of the skyscraper because I felt it was bullshit but I won’t get into who or what was behind 9/11 because there can never be a conclusion.


That is a very sound answer and I agree with you. I won't get into 'who' either but the 'what' and the glaring anomalies have intrigued me for years. :roll:
Robin Hood
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2586
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: Limassol

Re: For Kikapu

Postby B25 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:15 pm

Sotos wrote:Because of the massive heat. The central core was heated for a long time, and since steal is a good conductor of heat the whole core was heated not just the upper portion. The heat weakened the whole core from top to bottom, and when the top floors started to collapse there was a cascading effect of greater and greater mass coming down on an already weakened structure.


This is completely wrong as aviation fuels burning temp is far lower than the melting point of the steel used. On top of that the fuel would have burnt off long before any real heat could be conducted down the length of the superstructure. We are not just talking a single beam running down the centre but lattice of steel throughout.

Come on Soto's you are usually better than that.
User avatar
B25
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:03 pm
Location: ** Classified **

Re: For Kikapu

Postby Sotos » Tue Jul 26, 2016 3:52 pm

That is a very weak answer. My house is designed to resist an earthquake to a given Richter scale, as are thousands of other structures in Cyprus but they have never been tested.


There are lots of earthquakes every year and therefore buildings are constantly being tested against earthquakes... and still some of them fail even though they were not supposed to.

The guys who designed these building are far smarter in their chosen field, than you and I will ever be. It is not like the medical profession, it is an exact science based on proven laws and very complex mathematics. So I would suggest that, as they say, it was designed to take the impact of a fully loaded 707.


But based on what you told us those engineers should never have worried about a fully loaded 707 because such thing wouldn't affect the building in any way more than a usual fire would. It is obvious that those smart engineers knew that a fully loaded 707 COULD bring such a building down which is why they even mentioned such a scenario. Engineering can be an exact science only if you know all the variables and you make the correct calculations and no mistakes are made in the execution. However we have seen many times where engineering goes wrong... buildings and bridges collapsing, spaceships blown to pieces, space missions failing, airplane failures etc. In this case the variables of such event were possibly not fully known because such event was never tested in the real world. Theoretical models are often different from reality (especially in the 60s when they had far less computing power). Furthermore I doubt that they spend a great amount of time and resources to protect against such a scenario because the likelihood of such thing happening was rather small.
User avatar
Sotos
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 10697
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:50 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RichardB and 0 guests