+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

Thread: What Happened to the Planes and Passengers on 9/11 -VIDEO

  1. #1

    Default What Happened to the Planes and Passengers on 9/11 -VIDEO

    Last edited by zengrifter; July 30th, 2016 at 01:03 AM.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default Central Control of the Planes

    Dogma schmogma

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    A few obvious problems with the video "9/11 Who Controlled the planes". Sorry if they are so obvious it seems silly to point them out. If the radar weak spots were so hard to find out about, how did the makers of the video get them? The timing of the transponders would easily be accomplished by watches. I guess this guy thinks watches are too high tech for the perps to understand. The last thing was the planes all had to hit their targets in relatively short order. Too much time between impacts would have resulted in more than just the last plane being shot down. Some planes had to fly for a while to allow the others to get in the air. It takes time to take the aircraft. Transponders being turned off 10 minutes into the flights sounds about right. It would be difficult to make a move right after take off. The fact that so much time between impacts in Washington and NY shows central planning was poor if it existed at all. The lack of good timing allowed for the last plane to be shot down.

  4. #4

    Default

    Just for posterity, Shred, you do not believe the official story, right? zg
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    I am sure it was tweaked for political advantage as well as money and power grabs. They never waste a crisis. How much truth made it into the final report is the question? The evidence that came out directly from eyewitnesses and videos show that planes struck the buildings. A commercial pilot was the supposed pilot terrorist on the tough approach into the Pentagon. The plane that went down was most likely shot down, if not it was blown up in the air when the passengers jumped the guy who said he had a bomb as they tried to retake the plane. The government was aware of some terrorist threat that day. How specific that intel was is not clear. Did they know 9/11 is a date for action on key US targets or did they know 9/11, planes, World Trade Center, Pentagon etc.? What point between these extremes is the true story? A decades long study on the effects of different types of fire on concrete a steel buildings was released a couple years before the the attack that spurred planning and training quickly afterward. The buildings actually lasted slightly longer than the study predicted. Connect those dots and compare to the official report.
    Last edited by Lady Tthree; May 8th, 2012 at 07:00 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    I am sure it was tweaked for political advantage as well as money and power grabs. They never waste a crisis. How much truth made it into the final report is the question? The evidence that came out directly from eyewitnesses and videos show that planes struck the buildings. A commercial pilot was the supposed pilot terrorist on the tough approach into the Pentagon. The plane that went down was most likely shot down, if not it was blown up in the air when the passengers jumped the guy with a said he had a bomb as they tried to retake the plane. The government was aware of some terrorist threat that day. How specific that intel was is not clear. Did they know 9/11 is a date for action on key US targets or did they know 9/11, planes, World Trade Center, Pentagon etc.? What point between these extremes is the true story? A decades long study on the effects of different types of fire on concrete a steel buildings was released a couple years before the the attack that spurred planning and training quickly afterward. The buildings actually lasted slightly longer than the study predicted. Connect those dots and compare to the official report.
    Sorry to hear this, the cognitive dissonance is clearly indicated.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDutton View Post
    Sorry to hear this, the cognitive dissonance is clearly indicated.

    I have actually researched all this on my own. None of this came from parroting other people. I know many eyewitnesses to both the Pentagon and Shanksville events. This was the most I could say for sure and leaves a huge spectrum of possibilities. I figured the dots would say I didn't believe the official report but I know little about the official findings. I lost a good friend on the flight that hit the Pentagon. DC is a relatively short drive and my wife is from the the area in Pa that the Shanksville plane went down. I used first hand accounts told to me by eyewitnesses that I know for these 2 events. If you don't understand the nature of prolonged heat on both steel strength and explosive spalling of concrete you haven't done any research on your own. The WTC could only stand so much prolonged heat at that temperature before failure was imminent. It is basic superstructural engineering. By the way the study on explosive spalling that no doubt generated the idea to use this type of attack came up with structural alternatives for the concrete itself so it would not shed outer layers so fast if at all because of this vulnerability of even the newer skyscrapers at the time not to mention antiques like the WTCs which were more vulnerable. It is possible something else happened but the plane attack would have done exactly what happened according to the studies in the late 1980s and 1990s. Nothing else was necessary.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    The WTC could only stand so much prolonged heat at that temperature before failure was imminent. It is basic superstructural engineering. ... Nothing else was necessary.
    1,700 architects and engineers disagree --

    http://www.ae911truth.org/

    Richard Gage in the video is not just the founder of AE 911 Truth,
    he is also the former president of American Institute of Architects


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    The evidence that came out directly from eyewitnesses and videos show that planes struck the buildings.
    Apparently, just like JFK, many witnesses died in a statistically anomalous spike, subsequent to the attack -


  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DDutton View Post
    1,700 architects and engineers disagree --
    Concrete starts to have explosive spalling at 77 degrees fahrenheit. At 212 degrees the water bound in the concrete becomes free at 1 atmosphere pressure. This greatly increases spalling as the water vaporizes causing pressures to explode the concrete from the inside. At 572 degrees siliceous concrete strength is lost. At 800 degrees calcium hydroxide disassociates further weakening the withered columns of concrete. At 1110 degrees the concrete is structurally useless. It starts to creep. Shortly there after calcium carbonate disassociates. At 1470 degrees there is a total loss of hydration causing ceramic binding. Which is followed by melting. of concrete. Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees fahrenheit with optimal conditions. Even at 2/3rds that temperature the building will collapse if given enough time at that temperature.

    The austenizing temperature of steel is 1335 degrees (temperatures are higher by about 150 degrees for more modern alloys but the WTC are old buildings). It becomes brittle at this temperature. Steel is weakened before it becomes brittle. Steel starts to loss its strength much earlier. By the time it hits 800 degrees it has lost 40% of its room temperature strength. The reinforcing parts in the steel become brittle and weak at much lower temperatures.

    Given that jet fuel burned optimally will generate temperatures in excess of 1800 degrees all structural members lose strength well before that temperature is reached. After being weakened by hours of spalling the concrete is structurally useless just as the steel becomes significantly weakened. These are the specs of the materials and the accelerant. Structural failure was just a matter of time. Just because a collection of under informed engineers and architects disagree with the experts in the field it doesn't make them right no matter how many the are. A temperature as low as 1000 degrees for enough time would cause collapse. Considering the structural damage caused on impact even 800 degrees would press the structural limits after a few hours.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees fahrenheit with optimal conditions. Even at 2/3rds that temperature the building will collapse if given enough time at that temperature.

    A temperature as low as 1000 degrees for enough time would cause collapse. Considering the structural damage caused on impact even 800 degrees would press the structural limits after a few hours.
    Here is a calculation that suggests that the fire was not even close to 1000, maybe only less than half or lower.

    THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Third base
    Posts
    11,322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shred View Post
    Concrete starts to have explosive spalling at 77 degrees fahrenheit. At 212 degrees the water bound in the concrete becomes free at 1 atmosphere pressure. This greatly increases spalling as the water vaporizes causing pressures to explode the concrete from the inside. At 572 degrees siliceous concrete strength is lost. At 800 degrees calcium hydroxide disassociates further weakening the withered columns of concrete. At 1110 degrees the concrete is structurally useless. It starts to creep. Shortly there after calcium carbonate disassociates. At 1470 degrees there is a total loss of hydration causing ceramic binding. Which is followed by melting. of concrete. Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees fahrenheit with optimal conditions. Even at 2/3rds that temperature the building will collapse if given enough time at that temperature.

    The austenizing temperature of steel is 1335 degrees (temperatures are higher by about 150 degrees for more modern alloys but the WTC are old buildings). It becomes brittle at this temperature. Steel is weakened before it becomes brittle. Steel starts to loss its strength much earlier. By the time it hits 800 degrees it has lost 40% of its room temperature strength. The reinforcing parts in the steel become brittle and weak at much lower temperatures.

    Given that jet fuel burned optimally will generate temperatures in excess of 1800 degrees all structural members lose strength well before that temperature is reached. After being weakened by hours of spalling the concrete is structurally useless just as the steel becomes significantly weakened. These are the specs of the materials and the accelerant. Structural failure was just a matter of time. Just because a collection of under informed engineers and architects disagree with the experts in the field it doesn't make them right no matter how many the are. A temperature as low as 1000 degrees for enough time would cause collapse. Considering the structural damage caused on impact even 800 degrees would press the structural limits after a few hours.
    Nice of you to write off 1500 professional engineers and architects in such a flippant manner. I'd suggest that many of them know far more than you ever will about what you tried to talk about there above. I'd also suggest you watch and listen to the excellent 14-min Richard Gage video above, during which he talks of 2800-degree heat caused in the twin towers by nano-thermite. (How did that get in there? See 85 employees of Ace... company who refurbished the lift wells in 1999. Hmmm.)

    What you suggest above has nothing to do with how WTC7 came down. Let Richard Gage explain to you exactly how that managed to collapse into its own footprint.
    Dogma schmogma

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katweezel View Post
    Nice of you to write off 1500 professional engineers and architects in such a flippant manner. I'd suggest that many of them know far more than you ever will about what you tried to talk about there above. I'd also suggest you watch and listen to the excellent 14-min Richard Gage video above, during which he talks of 2800-degree heat caused in the twin towers by nano-thermite. (How did that get in there? See 85 employees of Ace... company who refurbished the lift wells in 1999. Hmmm.)

    What you suggest above has nothing to do with how WTC7 came down. Let Richard Gage explain to you exactly how that managed to collapse into its own footprint.
    If you read all my comments in this thread my position is that the planes were enough to do what happened, which is supported by the evidence, but that doesn't mean something else didn't happen. I am not running around trying to find other explanations because they are not necessary, That doesn't mean I am sold that nothing else occurred. As for dismissing a small percentage of the total number of engineers. I am used to being informed to the point that lesser people in fields can't understand what I am talking about. It is the field leaders that are on the cutting edge and agree with me most of the time. It has been the way of things my whole life. Usually the understanding of lower ability people in the field catch up in a decade or two but some of the things they were teaching that had been disproved when I was in high school are still being taught in high schools today after more than 30 years.

    The part of the temperature quotations that should be pointed out to those that might not know it. The temperatures are for the concrete and steel themselves, not the surrounding fire. Steel conducts heat very well so they are almost equivalent (it would even carry high heat to steel well below the floors on fire) but concrete is another story. It would take a lot longer to heat up. The steel reinforcement inside the concrete are weaker steel which would lose strength faster than the concrete and once exposed by spalling of the concrete would help disitribute the heat within the concrete.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Here is a calculation that suggests that the fire was not even close to 1000, maybe only less than half or lower.

    THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
    When I research this I always try to get sources that predate the 9/11 tragedy. After that too many have an agenda and all information is presented through that prism. a conspiracy backer would present findings in a way that bolstered his position while someone with opposite beliefs would present the same data in a way to bolster their position. By going back before the event for sources you remove the bias of the presenter of the findings. This bias by both sides destroys all confidence in what is presented by either side in the debate. Occasionally you will find something that SEEMS to simply present evidence with no bias but it is rare.

    I have heard many theories on what the temperatures should have reached, from 600 degrees to 1300 degrees. No surprise they all fit the presenter's position. I am not a video expert bet infrared analysis if possible would end this debate.
    Last edited by Lady Tthree; May 9th, 2012 at 09:20 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    952

    Default

    I read the entire link ZG. The guy put a lot of thought into it but missed a lot of factors. The range given at 7600 miles includes 1 take off and landing. The distance from Boston to LA is about 2600 miles over land. Planes travel through the air and they would have a big head wind on this trip. To determine the air miles take the round trip time (7.5 hours to LAX and 4.5 hours on the way back from LAX) assume the same head wind and tail wind on the round trip to cancel each other out. You have 12 hours to travel 5200 miles (68.42% of total range of 7600 miles). Take the Boston to LA leg, 7.5 hours/12 hours*68.42% = 42.76% of total fuel capacity to make the trip to LAX. Total fuel capacity is 24000 gallons. They would need at least 10263 gallons to attempt the trip without being guaranteed of running out of fuel. Probably enough extra for takeoff and the short flight to New York as a safety margin. That means there was about 10000 gallons in each plane on impact not the 6500 gallons the writer assumes in his calculation . I guess he assumed the missing fuel flowed to the next lowest floor(s).

    He assumed a third consumed in the initial fireball (a wild guess but I don't have a better one) which would have burned close to optimally at 1800 degrees fahrenheit as it was vaporized. He doesn't even figure this extreme heat into his equations. He dismisses it. He also had another third run off. It went to the floor(s) below. Heat rises. His assumption is based on only one floor burning. He has dismissed way over 75% of the energy produced by the consumption of the fuel. He assumes the rest pools burning quickly. I am betting the floors are carpeted with a thick layer of padding over the concrete under the carpet. This would saturate like a sponge burning similar to a wick in a lamp. It would not consume the carpet until the fuel was almost totally consumed. Like with the wick in a lamp the fuel would burn very slowly in a controlled fashion. Other things that do not absorb the fuel would burn once the initial covering of fuel was consumed. The plane no doubt had combustibles on board. Perhaps some very combustible things brought by the terrorists. These other things would add to the heat produced. If we negate these smaller unknown factors we see that his estimate is off by a factor of 4 as he lost over 75% of the energy released and only calculated 25% to get his 495 degrees temperature added to the floor. At the full factor of 4 we get 1980 degrees fahrenheit. If we also negate the fuel that flowed to lower floors we get a temerature of 1485 degrees fahrenheit. Both are plenty to cause the collapse.

    So to sum up the initial fireball heated the air in the room so all those air heating calculations were for naught (adding 512 million joules of energy from the pooled fuel that was attributed to heating the air). It also started to heat the structure as well. The carpet and padding would act as a wick causing slow consumption of the fuel that he assumes is pooled and the more thorough heating of the superstructure.
    Last edited by Lady Tthree; May 9th, 2012 at 05:18 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. No Planes on 911- Exposing the Illusion
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2016, 10:22 AM
  2. 911 Hijacker Believed Planes Were Being Landed By Remote Control
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 14th, 2014, 08:17 PM
  3. A Little Known Fact About The 9/11 Planes
    By zengrifter in forum Conspiracy Theory
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 2014, 02:56 AM
  4. What the Hell Happened to the Economy!
    By Opinion in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: January 31st, 2014, 07:29 PM
  5. What the Heck Happened Here?
    By Katweezel in forum Anything Else But
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 01:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts