9/11 belief, mythology, and the unknowable (OT)

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 341 - 360 of total 954 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:18am PT
Hey Klimmer, have you been to ground zero?
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:31am PT
So who was it who set Klimmer's volume at 11, anyway?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:36am PT
We could also get into the idea that a fullsize commercial jetliner going at the speeds they say it was going at, it would be impossible for it to get that low to the ground due to ground effect. No way to do it.

Don't you start with the aviation expert stuff like Rok. How the hell do you think planes land? Ground effect? You know what ground effect is at over 400 kts? A big freaking explosion!

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:40am PT
I have been to the Pentagon and the WTC towers before 9-11-01. But not afterwards.

DC is a really eye-opening city to live near and visit. I was stationed at Ft. Myer, VA, in the US Army Honor Guard for 2 years. It is where I learned to become very politically involved.

One evening I pulled ceremonial guard duty outside a General's office inside the Pentagon as he played host to Central American Military Officers and he told Vietnam War stories, as they drank copious amounts of alcohol.

Being in the US Army in DC was an eye-opener to say the least. Good experience.

Many Vets have their eyes open about 9-11.

You should read Jesse Ventura's Book, American Conspiracies. I highly recommend it. Very well written and researched. He is actually very brilliant in his way. Even though I know a lot about the classic conspiracies, I learned a great deal I didn't know.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:44am PT
Reilly,

You do not take off and land at full speed, therefore very little ground effect, although even then it is felt some.

AA Flight 77 was supposively going at full speed.

No way to do it.

Check out Pilots for 9-11 Truth.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 02:57am PT
Klim,
You ever flown a plane? You ever studied aerodynamics? You ever taught people to fly? I think not. You read some tripe on the intardnet written by some fictitious whackos and you suck it up like nobody's business. Go read up on spanwise flow, induced drag, aspect ratio, and, most importantly, angle of attack. Then check back and we'll 'talk'.

ps
Even if those 'pilots for truth' really exist whatever you're reading is either taken out of context or completely bogus. There's a lot of people pushing up daisies who wish ground effect could have overcome angle of attack.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:43am PT
karl,
I think it's an important point to make that their is PLENTY of evidence we have not got the whole story about 9-11 and that a cover-up is in place. The 9-11 commission members and even commission leaders have admitted such themselves.

Karl,
the use of the english language itself can lead one down rabbit holes because of the way things are written. i have been involved in chemical plant investigations and i said earlier that THERE ARE ALWAYS SOME INCONSISTENCIES. ALWAYS. even eyewitnesses.

and yet your statement would lead one to believe that the 911 commission members themselves have admitted a cover-up.

i know you were probably trying to say that thecommission admits there are inconsitencies but i done know of them admitting a coverup, perhaps you can enlighten us...



and Tony,
your statement illustrates your ignorance of how a complex structural steel structure behaves.

NIST does not address the glaring truth that ought to be hitting everyone square in the face: when an itty bitty part of any three-dimensional grid structure fails--the rest of the structure simply holds it up. the load automatically redistributes. extraordinary collapse requires extraordinary destruction, which is entirely absent in the NIST fairy tale.

from NIST
NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower

and your experts? the difference between a run of the mill architect or structural enginer versus a high rise structural guy is like comparing a gym climber to an experienced big wall climber.


Tony,
there was a tremendous effort to whisk all WTC debris away swiftly. the steel was shipped to china and smelted. this was all done in complete defiance of ordinary forensic procedure for a crime scene

and from NIST
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

yeah, dont bother reading this, when you turn into an ostrich that sand in your eyes might hurt.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:56am PT
oh, yeah and here, try reading this truthers...

How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 10:57am PT
It make sense Jolly, the NWO flew real airliners into the towers but decided to fire a missile into the pentagon in front of thousands of rush hour commuters a few hundred yards away and fake their eyewitness reports. Good Truther sense that is.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:03pm PT
Reilly,


Pull your head out. I fly. I fly paragliders and also teach physics. All aircraft experience ground effect, except those that are designed against it.

Even in my paraglider, coming in low and slow I experience ground effect, and it makes my landing approach just a little longer. Ground effect happens in all aircraft, anything that flies, except those purposefully designed against it, like I said.

Aircraft have to reduce their speeds to get to the point of landing. A Boeing 757 going at cruise speed or high speed is not going to land or come into close proximity of the ground where ground effect is going to take place. It is a force that buoys the craft upward that the pilot or craft cannot overcome. Ground effect has made many a pilot overshoot their landing approach, that is why you have to compensate for it and know about it and land accordingly. Remember, flight 77 supposively came in from a SW direction low over ground for a considerable distance. Low enough to take out many lightpoles! (Yea right) Therefore ground effect would have taken place and flying at high speeds . . . "Flight 77, flying at 530 miles per hour (853 km/h)" it is not gonna happen. Just more miracles on 9-11-01 that can not be explained by the Laws of Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77


Now a smaller jet with a shorter wingspan, yes it could do it. Remember that ground effect is greatest within close proximity of the ground, "with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan." So a small jet could indeed get within a low height above the ground going at high speed. Haven't we all seen this at airshows? Fighters going at near full speed in close proximity to the ground? When have you ever seen a full size commercial jet in close proximity to the ground going at cruise speed or high speed? Never. Ground effect will not allow it. They have to reduce their speed considerably to land or to get within close proximity to the ground. You got to slow it down to get through the ground effect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_in_aircraft

Aircraft may be affected by a number of ground effects, or aerodynamic effects due to a flying body's proximity to the ground.

The most significant of these effects is known as the Wing In Ground (WIG) effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately equal to the aircraft's wingspan above ground or other level surface, such as the sea. The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing, but it has also been used to effectively enhance the performance of certain kinds of aircraft whose planform has been adapted to take advantage of it, such as the Russian ekranoplans. The first to give scientific description of the ground effect and to provide theoretical methods of calculation of air cushion vehicles was Konstantin Tsiolkovsky in his 1927 paper "Air Resistance and the Express Train".[1][2]
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:24pm PT
is unemployment getting the best of you RJ? it is unfortunate that so much of your self worth is attributed to Supertopo, but i understand how hard it can be for a mental midget when their life didnt turn out the way they wanted.

and klimmer the physics teacher? hahahaha.



you guys freaking crack me up.

i gots some real work today managing the construction of a high rise that has fire protected steel members and analyses performed using knowledge gained from the twin towers accident. i try and learn from history and don't need to project my self worth on the pages of the taco.

if it makes you feel better rox you are the most warped dude on here of late as you are an expert on everything, cry when called out and yet pathetically, cannot seem to find a job. guess what, you wont find a job here.

oh wait, you can possibly set up klimmers HS physics experiments....
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
Hawkeye

But you are doing that too: "projecting your self worth on the pages of the taco."

Although you can't see your own self doing it .....
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:38pm PT
American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520#

Does the NTSB report for Flight 77, and the flight recorder for Flight 77 match? Nope.



9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/american_77_hijack_impossible.html


Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones
David Ray Griffin and Rob Balsamo
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html





Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
I fly paragliders and also teach physics

I'm supposed to be impressed by that? I'm not going to enumerate all the
powered and un-powered aircraft I have flown both in and out of ground effect as you obviously wouldn't be impressed. As I stated you need to broaden your aerodynamics knowledge and read the whole Wikipedia article you cursorily perused or should I send you a copy of Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators? It is a tad lengthy so to reprise my former advice on taking into consideration angle of attack here is what you ignored from Wikipedia:

The Wing In Ground effect is affected by numerous factors, including the wing's area, its chord length, and its angle of attack as it nears the surface, as well as the weight, speed, and configuration of the aircraft, and wing loading (aircraft weight per unit-area of wing).

I'm not wasteing any more time on this as you are only going to believe what you want to.

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Margulis.html




National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 InvestigationOfficial Explanation a “Fraud”

August 27, 2007 – World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.”

One of America ’s most prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst . She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."

In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as “this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties”. She compared 9/11 to several self-inflicted attacks that had been used in the past to arouse people’s fear and hatred and justify war, including the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor , the Reichstag Fire, and Operation Himmler, which Germany used to justify the invasion of Poland , the trigger for World War II.

Dr. Margulis credited “the research and clear writing by David Ray Griffin in his fabulous books about 9/11” for providing much of the information that formed her opinion about 9/11. She specifically lauded The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, “which provides overwhelming evidence that the official story is contradictory, incomplete, and unbelievable.”

Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world’s leading thinkers, chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of “The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders” by the editors of Resurgence magazine.

Dr. Margulis’ full statement can be read at PatriotsQuestion911.com. More information about Dr. Margulis’ career can be found at http://www.sciencewriters.org.

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
By Alan Miller
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_080104_eight_u_s__state_dep.htm
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
Reilly,

Sorry you can't handle the truth. The points I made are very clear.



Some people stick-up for the Truth and are brave enough to go after it regardless of the out-fall.

Some people are Chicken-hawks and tow the line for the US Goverenment through lies and distortions.

Where do you all fall? What side do you support?



I clearly fall on the side of Truth. I'm with these Patriots . . .

Military, Intelligence, and Government Patriots Question 9-11

http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:07pm PT
Arguing with Klimmer et al about their beliefs is even worse than trying to teach a pig to dance. You waste your time, get muddy, and don't even annoy the pig.

No offence to pigs, of course. Delightful critters.
Hawkeye

climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:15pm PT
WBraun

climber
Jul 2, 2010 - 01:19pm PT
NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially.

On the one partially collapse simulation they removed 40% of the structural support.

NIST experts?
Messages 341 - 360 of total 954 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta