Cyprus-Forum.com

[Robin Hood]

Kikapu:

Excuse me Robin, but with your above sentence, are you then not admitting that the Twin Towers collapsed due to extensive damage caused by the planes and not by any controlled demolition as to the reasons why the towers came down in the order that they did, or I'm a missing something.

I think you are missing something or I have explained myself badly!

You made reference to the sequence of the collapse ..... the South Tower went down first, followed by the North Tower, the reverse order of impact. Taken in the most simplistic way and not considering anything but the weight above the damage ..... you could be right in your assumption.

I merely said it is not quite as simple as that because the extent of the damage would have to be taken into account as well. Although the static mass above the damage in the North tower was less than that of the South tower, the damage to the centre structural columns must have been more extensive. In theory the North Tower could have collapsed first if you believe the ‘fire caused the collapse’ theory (few professionals do), as there would have been fewer main structural members that were un-damaged to support the load.

What happened in the actual collapse, i.e. once the structure moved under the force of gravity, would have been dictated by Newton’s Universal Laws of Motion. (Put into Newtonian language: when the mass above exceeded the resistance of the structure below then the forces were un-equal and the structure would move in the line of least resistance to the motion.) If the 47 centre columns below were still load bearing (which they were ) then the top section would start to descend but Newton tells us that it would then topple toward the side that provided the least resistance to the movement determined by gravity .... that being the damaged side of the building.


Paphitis, it is this simple Universal Law of Physics that determined what happened with the collapse of the three WTC buildings as seen on TV. The evidence says; to achieve what we all saw ........ the official explanation is wrong because to achieve this there had to be no resistance to the descent of the mass above under the force of gravity. The undamaged central columns would have acted as an opposing force to the mass above ..... the line of least resistance was to topple toward the damaged area where the structure was weaker. Quite simply put, this is the Universal Laws of Physics applied with simple common sense! This may help you to understand:

http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics-newtons-laws-of-motion/

So, you want a ‘respectable’ firm to explain why the towers collapsed? How about the people who designed it? BUT.................. the video is packed with explanations that have since been proved as absolute rubbish! The firm is covering its ass!

Documentary recorded in April 2002. An early insight before any formal investigations were concluded, of how the World Trade Center collapsed on 11th September 2001.

Recorded from Telwest Digital TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5ohCX9JI8

One example: The ‘structural engineer’ says “We allowed for a 200 ton jet aircraft hitting the structure at 400kts ..... but didn’t allow for the fuel ..... that was not our job!!!!” Unbelievable .... that’s like doing a safety audit on a swimming pool but ignoring the water in it!!!!!! So in their view is, if the fuel had not been there the towers would not have collapsed? Yeah, right .... and you are willing to accept this sort of explanation because you do not have the mind set, the technical background or even sufficient common sense to see the holes in their story!

Another example: Their expert was looking at the pile of scrap steel ..... he was telling the camera how the core failed but was, if you look at it, showing a section of the outer shell of the building (he mentions 'windows') which carried only a fraction of the load. What damage was done to that had very little relevance to the tower’s collapse.

The main load was taken by the central column .......... that bloody great lump of steel box section fabricated of 4” thick steel, that weighed more than the lorry delivering the 30 foot(?) section that you see on the video and even the excavator couldn’t lift it ..... and you think a furniture fire had enough energy in the form of heat to soften a section like that, in just about one hour, until it bent? Really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn34mnnDnKU

If/When you come back to tell me that they have it all correct (as you have a habit of ignoring any questions you are asked :roll: ) I will point out rest of the bits that defy the laws of physics and contradict the evidence!

[Paphitis]

But you see, the families have accepted that explanation, and as far as we know, lawyers are not approaching the families to sign them up because even the lawyers think it is futile and that they will be wasting their time.

So what is it to you? Surely the families would ask for their day in court.

If a bunch of Greek Cypriot refugees are attempting to have their day in court in the 'trnc' and Turkey of all places, why are there no such cases from the families of the Sep11 victims?

You can jump up and down all you like, believe what you want, but at the end of the day, it just doesn't stack up.

Plus, you still have no motive, or any evidence.

You are trying to pass your opinion as scientific fact. What I saw is 2 aircraft crash into the WTC buildings, and then collapse. I don't find anything at all out of the ordinary apart from the attack itself.

You are clasping at straws. I believe the aircraft alone could potentially make the towers collapse, but the fuel is the clincher for me. JETA1 burns at over 2200 degrees celsius, and that might even be enough to melt some metals.

And in all fairness, I don't believe the engineers actually considered an airliner hitting the towers at all. Maybe a light aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna but not a B767. Who in their right mind would have considered that? It is laughable. You do not mention any aircraft types. You only mention an aircraft.

The only possible thing you would consider as a logical remote possibility is a light aircraft experiencing engine difficulty or a complete engine failure and crashing into a building. Airliners will not crash into a building even with a failed engine. In fact, no twin engine aircraft would crash into the WTC with an engine failed and can even climb on one engine. In fact it is a mandatory performance requirement.

You can read about that here:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014C01352

This piece of legislation is ICAO as well and valid for all ICAO signatories.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

But you see, the families have accepted that explanation, and as far as we know, lawyers are not approaching the families to sign them up because even the lawyers think it is futile and that they will be wasting their time.

So what is it to you? Surely the families would ask for their day in court.

I can’t answer that as I am not one of the families of the victims. But there are victims 9/11 Truth Movement Groups who do not accept the official story. I would assume that until there is a full and open enquiry, there is insufficient concrete evidence available. Once there is a full enquiry with a reasoned conclusion based on facts and universal physical law, then the families will have their day in court.

If a bunch of Greek Cypriot refugees are attempting to have their day in court in the 'trnc' and Turkey of all places, why are there no such cases from the families of the Sep11 victims?

You (GC’s) have spent 40 years reviewing what happened in 1974 and you still have only versions of the truth! Maybe a case of more money than sense?

You can jump up and down all you like, believe what you want, but at the end of the day, it just doesn't stack up.

I agree the Official Explanation’ does not add up, that is why these truth movements exist.

Plus, you still have no motive, or any evidence.

I have given you motive! I have given you evidence! You chose to ignore both .... that is your choice.

You are trying to pass your opinion as scientific fact. What I saw is 2 aircraft crash into the WTC buildings, and then collapse. I don't find anything at all out of the ordinary apart from the attack itself.

But then you are not a professional, you have no more technical knowledge than the average farmer or taxi-driver! Newtons Laws ARE scientific fact! Just because you fail to comprehend the basics does not make them wrong and you right! That is extreme arrogance on your part. If you are told a story that does not comply with the evidence and proved to be so, through the Universal Laws of physics ........ then the story is false!

You are clasping at straws. I believe the aircraft alone could potentially make the towers collapse, but the fuel is the clincher for me. JETA1 burns at over 2200 degrees celsius, and that might even be enough to melt some metals.

You ignore all other evidence ! I am quoting simple verifiable fact ... you spout rubbish.

So the fuel is the clincher for you? How sad .... you don’t even know the difference between heat and temperature. Jet A1 CAN reach a flame temperature of around 2000C ...... in IDEAL combustion conditions .... and that would be the core flame temperature, not the gas temperature! The more heat energy (fuel) you put in, the more the gasses in the chamber will expand .... as a result you get more thrust. Normal chamber temperature is up to about 920C.

Did you notice all that black smoke? That is the result of poor combustion. In other words .... a relatively low temperature fire ...... the fuel was long gone ..... most of it exploded on impact and shot out of the outher side of the building ...... you may have noticed the huge ball of flame that rose into the air as it sucked up the oxygen it needed to burn.

The core temperature of the tip of a cigarette is around 1200C when you suck in the air ....... according to you this could at least soften or even melt steel ..... and yet you can extinguish it by rubbing it between your fingers!!!! So, what’s more important heat or temperature? Obviously heat, this is derived from fuel, the Jet A fuel was burned off very quickly so all that was left was the furniture. In the centre core there was nothing to provide that fuel.

And in all fairness, I don't believe the engineers actually considered an airliner hitting the towers at all. Maybe a light aircraft such as a Piper or Cessna but not a B767. Who in their right mind would have considered that? It is laughable.

You do not mention any aircraft types. You only mention an aircraft.

The only possible thing you would consider as a logical remote possibility is a light aircraft experiencing engine difficulty or a complete engine failure and crashing into a building. Airliners will not crash into a building even with a failed engine. In fact, no twin engine aircraft would crash into the WTC with an engine failed and can even climb on one engine. In fact it is a mandatory performance requirement.

FYI: There was a precedent: A Mitchell B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in the late 40’s.

Once again you are wrong ..... aircraft impact (a fully loaded Boeing 707 as I previously stated) was considered in the design and there is not so much difference between a 707 and 757/767 when you compare fuel load, weight, speed, construction etc. It’s a good job then that we that we do have engineers that DID consider it?

You can read about that here:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014C01352

This piece of legislation is ICAO as well and valid for all ICAO signatories.

Irrelevant to this discussion!


This guy has all the requirements you have demanded ...... he lists his qualifications, all the Companies he has owned/worked for, the buildings he has designed and explains other instances of fires in steel framed buildings. Unlike you he seems to have a good handle on Newton’s Laws of Motion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3FQtZnk2A#t=22.1564831

[Paphitis]

Well the truth movement groups need to lawyer up, when they find something. But it's not about not telling the truth now is it? The authorities have been trying to tell the truth but they can't reveal everything.

You still have not answered any questions,

The builders never took into consideration an airliner crashing into the WTC did they. They would be laughed at at the mere suggestion.

They only would maybe consider a light aircraft.

I mean engineers are not stupid and people building these types of buildings even need an approval from the nearest airport to ensure Obstacle Limitation Surface Clearance and they are also aware of CAO 20.7.1b right?

People always come up with the stupidest shit and most people ARE stupid for swallowing the bullshit up.

They hear engineers mention an aircraft and they ASSUME a B747 or A380 but why the hell would they consider these aircraft hitting a skyscraper?

They were talking about a Cessna hitting the WTC. That's it!

The other thing is people want to believe the conspiracy. It must give their lives meaning.

Even you, latch on to the word aircraft, but that is meaningless. Tell us what type of aircraft. They must have mentioned the control aircraft they used for the design.

And these engineers would be more fixated with Earth Quakes which would be a lot more destructive to a building than an aircraft. What they never would have considered is 50 tonnes of JETA1. Which is why the engineer said explicitly they took into consideration no fuel because the aircraft they were speaking of would only carry a few liters of AVGAS.

A B25 aircraft is not a Jet. They would struggle to maintain a positive rate on one engine and in those days there was no such thing as 20.7.1b which needs to be adhered to in order to obtain certification.

There is no precedence and any engineer would be ridiculed. Come on, it was a Cessna and you know it too. They even clarified that but can't find it. And they mentioned no fuel as well. Don't ever make the stupid assumption that the authorities and the design engineers have no clue and await from stupid idiots to enlighten them.

They were asked what aircraft they were considering and the reply was light aircraft only, not airliners. And no JEFA1

[Paphitis]

You see this is what pisses me off with idiotic conspiracists.

They select the bits of information that fits their thesis and discard the rest. For instance, they say that engineers considered an aircraft impact but they don't tell you what kind of aircraft. Instead, they will question the designers of the building when they say they didn't take into consideration any fuel.

They even accused them of stupidity, cover up and conspiracy.

But ask yourself why?

Well first of all there is not even a need to takes y aircraft into consideration because try deal with natural forces far greater such as earthquake.

Secondly there is a remote possibility of a light aircraft crashing into their building. They would have looked at what impact that would have such as loss of life and damage to the structural integrity.

They considered this and nothing else.

And they are not as dumb as you think. You are all dumb and arrogant for thinking the somehow the best engineers in the world are somehow negligent. They are not. They would also be talking to JFK airport about the OLS and Obstacle lighting and even used aviation consultants to be compliant with the OLS, and all Transitional Surfaces, corridors and TO splays. There is a lot involved and they would have been all over it otherwise JFK airport will screw them and can even prosecute them because they own the airspace. They need all the approvals.

[Paphitis]

OK, the design aircraft used was a B707. A smaller aircraft to the B767.

Next, they assumed an aircraft in its landing phase, and not an aircraft that had only been flying a short time and fully laden with JETA1. The next thing is they did not consider any JETA1 and the Chief Engineer doesn't even know how they could such a thing.

They only considered the following:
1) B707 - lighter and much slower than a B767 that plowed into the WTC
2) they assumed minimum fuel or aircraft in the landing phase with reserve fuel only
3) the kinetic energy of the impacts they analysed in the design were much liwer, from a lighter and much slower B707. The speeds they were using were under 180 knots.
4) the B767 that hit the WTC were flying at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots) and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board.

The energy involved are not even comparable.

This from the Chief Designer/engineer of the WTC.



kinetic energy = 1/2mv squared

The speed of the B767 impacts was 3 times than the design aircraft. 3 squared is equal to nine, plus, the mass of the B767 is greater so we are talking about Kinetic Energies 10 times or more than what the designers had considered.

Personally, I think they went over and beyond, just even considering the B707 scenario.



Oh and btw, Leslie Robertson is one of the most respected building designers in the world and a lecturer at Princeton.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

OK, the design aircraft used was a B707. A smaller aircraft to the B767.

Thank you for admitting you got it wrong on this occasion.

I will (of course ) answer the rest of the post later.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis:

OK, the design aircraft used was a B707. A smaller aircraft to the B767.

Thank you for admitting you got it wrong on this occasion.

I will (of course ) answer the rest of the post later.

It's not wrong at all. I was interrogating you about the design aircraft without looking into it myself.

What the Chief Designer is saying is perfectly valid.

The B767 crash into the WTC had 10 times or more energy than the simulated B707 crash. 10 times. And they have an explanation about the JETA1. In addition, he said there was no way to simulate the existence of fuel and that such a thing was not even common practice or done anywhere else in the world at that point in time. In other words, they considered it, but they never believed it was anymore feasible than a meteor striking the buildings.

In other words, they did not consider a B767 colliding with the WTC travelling at 513Knots and fully laden with JET Fuel.

So now, there was no data that the WTC could withstand this kind of impact or even know what would happen if it did.

Commercial Airliners are speed restricted to 250 knots below 10,000 and will fly an approach at 180 knots and 140 knots on final. I used 180 knots for my energy calculations.

It's one thing to say that the WTC was designed to withstand a collision from an aircraft but there are so many variables in that, and you need to specify design aircraft type, its mass, and speed and what assumptions were made in the design process.

Saying it could withstand a collision with any aircraft is NOT TRUE. Especially since they did not consider larger aircraft than a B707, carrying 38,000L of Jet Fuel, and doing 513knots which is close to the B767s high speeds. Which btw is about 0.82 Mach at SL.Almost the speed of sound.

Now just imagine getting hit by a B767 at over 900km/hour. All that energy straight into the building and then all that fuel falling through the different levels like a flaming waterfall.

You got a long way to go to convince anyone that you have more knowledge and integrity than this designer because I actually find him a very likable character, just from watching his intellect and poise on a few YouTubes.

If I was building a skyscraper, I would head hunt this guy.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:..... to continue:

Next, they assumed an aircraft in its landing phase, and not an aircraft that had only been flying a short time and fully laden with JETA1. The next thing is they did not consider any JETA1 and the Chief Engineer doesn't even know how they could such a thing.

I have been involved in many design and safety reviews for chemical plants and I find his statement to be contrary to the guide lines of such a review(s). Unless clearly stated otherwise and the ‘why’ fully explained, you always consider a worst case scenario, not to consider it would be professional negligence! That way you will cover any scenario of a lesser threat.

To me, as I have explained, any safety review that DID NOT take into account the likely effect of the fuel load would be failing in its duty and the results would be questioned. IMO: The short lived fuel fire (2-3 minutes maybe?) actually had little effect on the structure. It started the fires that consumed the contents on various floors above and below the point of impact. Most of it went straight through and any fluid would again follow Newtons laws and head for the basement via the central column. If there were fires lower down none were visible in the various videos.

They only considered the following:

1) B707 - lighter and much slower than a B767 that ploughed into the WTC

Not true, the aircraft are so similar the differences are not significant. This image is taken from Chapter 1 of the WTC Report [FEMA PDF of report]......... so it is an official piece of submitted evidence.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/boeing_707_767.html

2) they assumed minimum fuel or aircraft in the landing phase with reserve fuel only.

I do not believe this is true as explained above. I have gone through the report and have not found any such statement! Fully loaded Boeing 707 yes ..... but nowhere a mention of the aircraft being considered as being in the approach/landing configuration and with only reserve fuel.

This is his assumption IMO to cover his ass because at that time he accepted the official story that aircraft impact was followed by fire from the fuel and that was what caused the collapse.

I have every sympathy for him and when you look at the events he did a bloody god job in the design. Both building withstood the impact, if you believe the almost immediate explanation then it was the fuel that caused the collapse, but the evidence now says very clearly that this was most unlikely to be the case. This needs a full, thourough and ipartial investigation and that means NO GOVT. INTERFERENCE!

In civil Law if you cannot prove your case as being at least a probability of greater than 50% as being true ........... then you lose the case!

I wonder how he views the event now? I Can’t find any later statements from him.

3) the kinetic energy of the impacts they analysed in the design were much lower, from a lighter and much slower B707. The speeds they were using were under 180 knots.

I don’t think that is relevant as we KNOW they both withstood the impact and retained structural integrity.

The kinetic energy released at a higher speed would reduce the amount of fuel that remained within the structure. Take into account that the fuel was also travelling at high speed and would exit the building having expended much of the kinetic energy as it shredded the aircraft, turned liquid into droplets (spray) and then to a vapour when it exited the opposite side, mixed with air and was ignited. This makes the idea that the fuel melted (or softened the steel even less likely.

4) the B767 that hit the WTC were flying at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots) and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board.

See comment above. Both survived the initial impact.

The energy involved is not even comparable.

The energy from the impact would have been similar in either case as the lattice steel sections that formed the outer tube would have shredded the airframe and wings (and the fuel tanks) upon impact and they were similar in size and weight.

This from the Chief Designer/engineer of the WTC.

I know, I posted the video. Seems like a likeable enough guy and obviously well qualified to speak but he does admit the question of fuel was never considered because it was not within their remit. I agree with that in principal, as you would need a metallurgist and an expert in fuel fires/combustion to consider that aspect. That should have been the designers responsibility .... but he says not!

The enquiry didn’t bother to listen to the fire/fuel experts after the event ........ so why should he have done so before hand when apparently no such expertise existed?

[Schnauzer]

Well done to both major participants in the analytical debate between them, though they are of opposite opinions, they deserve to be congratulated on their input... However, the 'End Product' has not really produced the conclusion that either party would have wished for and there may be a very sound reason for that.

The 'REALLY' interested parties in the enigma which is 9/11, have now had 15 years to come up with (and produce) evidence to substantiate THEIR claims to have pinpointed the culprits responsible for the entire period both prior and subsequent to the events of that day BUT, in so doing, they have apparently underestimated the intelligence of those that are referred to so often as 'Conspiracy Theorists' by failing miserably to explain some glaringly obvious points of interest which have not been given the slightest consideration.

There are now several thousands of documents available which uphold the 'Official Version' of that which took place (easily concocted over 15 years I suggest) yet no mention of some very significant events which are probably not so easily obliterated nor discarded as some of the other evidence under scrutiny (and now ready for perusal after 15 years) which is possibly a source of great embarrassment to those whose fingers were in the 'Proverbial Pie'

Little point in going over 'Structural, Scientific and Avionic' declarations and findings since, they too have been subjected to 15 years of possible influential persuasion by 'Interested Parties' so, where are the 'Flaws' in the recently revived subject of 9/11 ?.

I do not know BUT, a good route would be "Follow the Money"...... it's a difficult trail to cover up and the 'Loopholes' are enormous.

Larry Silverstein would make a good start and his comment about "Pull it" (WT7) takes a bit of explaining.