Where's the plane noise from the second hit?

this is unbelievable:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/24hr-1-flashie.swf


Notice you can even hear a helicopter coming around the building, you can hear sirens, you can hear the explosion-- but no sound from the roaring incredibly loud jet engines????

This site has much better quality video but no sound:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/strike-two-2.mov


Moreover, for that matter, where's the plane? We should be able to see it swoop down off in the distance on the right hand side.

How dare you post such blasphemy?!?

P.S. Those were some really 'special planes'.

P.S.S. 'In Plane Site' was aired on T.V. in Australia recently, which IMO is part of a setup to ridicule and marginalize the '9/11 Truth Movement'.



From here: http://tinyurl.com/cs2st

I hear the plane, I don't know what the problem is.

I live right under a major flight path, and the sound is similar.

Also, the view in the video is from the north, and the plane is coming from the south.

saw and heard the plane fly over head and hit the building.

nuff said

I've read that the NYC witness statements made on 9/11 are practically unanimous that it was something other than a large jet. Could you please give one or two cites to dispel this notion, from the thousands that you allegedly know about?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

sabbat hunter wrote: "thousands saw and heard the plane fly over head and hit the building."

Here's one eyewitness account:


sabbat hunter also wrote: "nuff said"

-Make7

Boeing airliner, military plane(green), and small plane. Some of them were wrong.

seems many witnesses aren't very reliable on details
but lots of them described explosions before the collapses
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html

... was captured on video. I'll see if I can discover if this is indeed the case. Perhaps the video evidence can show what actually hit the South Tower.

-Make7

Edit to add:

Oh, yeah - see Post#13.

In other words, do you really think a plane will smoothly pass through a steel wall without slowing, distorting or exploding upon impact?

http://webfairy.org/2hit/ghostplane.htm

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure it did explode. And it almost certainly was slowed and distorted to some extent by colliding into the building's exterior. Do you have some evidence that proves that it didn't?

-Make7

Does the plane in the video show the slightest bit of slowing or distortion as it enters the building?

Something obviously exploded, but the question is why the explosion didn't occur at the point of impact but after the "plane" went in.

Say, hypothetically, through a window? It does not explode on impact like you would expect from the Hollywood examples. Instead your fuel container disintegrates as it punches a hole through the glass. The gasoline ignites after it enters the target. The jet fuel and plane are fundamentally the same thing, just much faster. You don't see flames until the fuel has collided with the interior then bounced back outside. Of course, this means that even less of the fuel makes it into the interior to burn anything and the high velocity spreads whats left even thinner. Hence, no evidence supporting an internal temperature peak of 250 celsius or higher. That in conjunction with the 3rd law of Thermal Dynamics, Entropy, it is proven impossible that the steel support structure could have been sufficiently compromised for a collapse... pancake, waffle or freedom toast variety. That does not even take into account the evidence of steel support columns being vaporized at 35' intervals.
So, the fire peaked at 250 celsius
Steel degrades at 500 Celsius
Melts at 800 Celsius
Vaporizes at 1300 Celsius

Somebody is a few degrees short of a think tank here.

We have become so conditioned to accept our government's law breaking that no one remembers there are laws that no one can break.

is analogous to a fragile airplane impacting a mesh of thick steel beams.

I'm not saying the airplane won't smash through, and I agree some of the explosion should be inside. However, I do expect that the airplane shows some sign of being affected by the impact with the building. Instead, the airplane body doesn't distort at all and simply melts into the structure.

But that does not take into account the action. The velocity of the plane and the weakness of its parts would work against there being any signs of distress to the plane as it impacted. The plane disintegrates as it hits the structural steel cage of the building. The velocity carries the parts through the glass filled space between supports. The material impacting pushes anything in it's way through just as the following material will soon push the aforementioned material.
And I wasn't thinking plate glass in the analogy. The resistance would be much more analogous to safety glass like a car windshield. I was also thinking moving car. Sorry I did not make that clear. Ethnocentrism on my part. I never thought to Molotov a house.

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

Of course it is attached to a really crappy theory, but what the Hell. Here you can see the three points of penetration. Namely, engine, bulk, engine. The structural steel cage held, only breaking at the two points impacted with the solid mass of the engines and one point with the main mass of the plane. The site I linked is way too reliant on speculation and variable measurements. In one graphic it shows the plane's wingspan as greater than the width of the building and in another it shrinks to a cessna, but the pictures are well archived.
Oh yeah, and this entire thread is still not important to the overall situation. The official story and the Comm. Report both fail to account for basic physical laws. Physics and Thermal Dynamics. Gravity is a constant. It neither increases nor decreases depending on the current Administration. No theory is necessary to counter the 911 story. No logic either. Math disproves it.

They think you are too stupid to do the math. Are you gonna let them insult you like that?

Before I get started, let me welcome you to DU. :hi: I'm sure you'll find it interesting around here.

I agree with the low value that you place on the importance of this thread, although perhaps not for the same reason.

This is the part of your post that piqued my curiosity:


I have to admit that I would like to see if it is possible for math to disprove it. What exactly does the math show?

- Make7

Here in its most basic. 1/2(at)=d
That is the how to calculate distance traveled at free fall velocity. Free fall can only occur when the object is free of resistance in its fall. The official story states that the tops of the buildings fall through 110 stories of building. It is impossible for them to travel the distance in 10 seconds, but that is all it took on 911. Now for a complete work up
read Professor Jones's, physics professor at BYU, paper.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Or Dr. David Ray Griffin's

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

or Professor Fetzer, less math more theory.

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.doc

Elsewhere on this thread I discussed the thermal dynamics.
There I list the temps and effects of steel. The weakest steel I could find. Even with that steel the towers could not have collapsed, but the towers were built of a far better quality. There are basic scientific laws that must be suspended to work out NIST's explanation. And popular mechanics used the melting temperature of weak iron for their calculation's. If you want to speculate on something, try to find why these allegedly reputable organizations chose to falsify data to validate their hypothesis.

First, it's actually:

   d = 1/2(at²)

And if one uses the acceleration of gravity (g) for a, that is the distance traveled in free fall. If you want to find the velocity at some point in the fall, you would use the following:

   v = at

Second, they did not fall in 10 seconds. You will need to show me something conclusive before I will accept that figure. The actual times are still a debated issue around here. (See some of the discussion in this thread.)

• What evidence do you have for the fires reaching a peak temperature of 250°C?
  
• What evidence is there that the steel support columns were vaporized at 35 foot intervals?
  
• "Steel degrades at 500 Celsius"? Define 'degrades'. According to this source, structural steel loses 60% of it's yield strength at 400°C.

In my opinion, you have a long way to go to prove anything.

If you believe that someone else has proven it, by all means copy and paste their work here to reply, but I really don't intend to sift through pages and pages of info to try and figure out what exactly it is that you think the math disproves.

Perhaps it is possible to disprove the "official story" with math, but what you have posted certainly doesn't qualify.

- Make7

d = 1/2(at²)
Oops, that does look bad. I have yet to figure out how to get the little 2 symbol for squared using my keyboard so I copied and pasted the equation from another source. Could have sworn that the two was present. Guess I was wrong. I'll give you that one.


"Second, they did not fall in 10 seconds. You will need to show me something conclusive before I will accept that figure. The actual times are still a debated issue around here. (See some of the discussion in this thread.)"

I use the seismic charts when referring to the time of fall. The videos show it also, but I do not trust the frame rate on anything that could be altered.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html



What evidence do you have for the fires reaching a peak temperature of 250°C?

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177;.)

At any given location, the duration of (air, not steel) temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127,)

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” (NIST, 2005, p. 140,)

The 35' sections- Ok, off the top of my head I do not remember the url for that statement. Here is a similiar claim that I can find. I will give you this as well. I should not have included that point without exact reference. If you are counting that is 2 for you.

In that statement, Hoffman said that most of the sections seemed to be no more than 30-feet long. He later revised this, saying that, judging from an aerial image taken 12 days after the attacks, most of the pieces seemed to be between 24 and 48 feet long, with only a few over 50 feet. He also noted that “the lengths of the pieces bears little resemblance to the lengths of the steel parts known to have gone into the construction,” which means that one could not reasonably infer that the pieces simply broke at their joints (Griffin, September 27, 2005)


"Steel degrades at 500 Celsius"? Define 'degrades'. According to this source, structural steel loses 60% of it's yield strength at 400°C."

I have seen the point where steel degrades (weakens, loses strength, decreases in structural grade, etc)listed as everything from 400 to 700 C. I went with a middle of the road temperature of 500. You chose the lowest. Either one makes no significant difference. Here's why:

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C . This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001;.)


So, of your 5 points, I surrender two on technicality. I believe that leaves me with 3. Now on to the big picture point of all of this. I do not know of a formula that will directly prove the official story invalid. I do know of a series of calculations which will, but you have to work it out for yourself. I would not trust an equation someone pasted in a forum. Figures do not lie, but liars figure. Or in other words "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. Unless of course he does not learn it immediately or he forgets. So if you really want to guarantee that this man never goes hungry again, shoot him in the head. It's the only way to be sure.(Reverend X, 2006)
I hope you you realize that that is a joke. Sorry, trying to lighten the mood a bit.

I also do not suggest that you skim through a few scientific documents to pull out relevant information. I suggest you read the them, in entirety, from beginning to end. The documents I linked are damn important pieces of information that everyone should read. It has been 4+ years, 2 wars and one Constitution since the events of 9-11-01. Make the time to read them. If your mind is not changed about the cause of the "Collapses" then please submit your proof.

I can never remember how to type the special ascii characters on my laptop so if I need to use one I just look it up and type it in html style. For example to get the superscript 2 character you can just type ², but I usually just use html tags to put a 2 as superscript in a line of text like this: [sup]2[/sup]. I seem to be able to remember html tags, so that's what I tend to use. Or you can just write ^2 to denote something being squared.

While on the subject of html, when quoting someone it helps to display their text in a different manner. Some people use italics [i]text[/i], bold typeface [b]text[/b], or a "blockquote" element [div class="excerpt"]text[/div]. I find that it makes it easier to understand what text is being responded to and what text is the reponse. Quotation marks do work as well, but are much easier miss when reading rapidly. Especially if it is a response to a post that someone hasn't read yet.

Check out DU's HTML lookup table. There's a link to it on every 'Post a message' page.

The seismic readings are not an accurate way to measure of the collapse times. Here are a few reasons why:

1. The video evidence contradicts the times based on the seismic data.
   
2. The collapse event for WTC7 is 18 seconds long. That is never cited as its actual collapse time.
   
3. The collapse event for WTC1 is 8 seconds, which would require a tremendous amount of extra force to accelerate the building to the ground faster than gravity. Not impossible, but improbable to an extreme degree.

I'll just address the first one. From the site that you linked to for the seismic information, they say: "It is widely accepted that both towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground." And also: "Seismic records of the Twin Tower collapses show a large signal for each collapse lasting just under 10 seconds. The durations of the large signals are widely equated with the durations of the collapses themselves. However, the signals may correspond to only parts of the collapse events, such as the rubble reaching the ground."

(Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html)

In my previous post, I said that you would have to show me something conclusive for the 10 second collapse time you claim. The seismic data is not what I would consider conclusive. Every single video I have ever seen shows the times to be significantly longer than the seismic data is purported to indicate.

So as evidence that the "the fire peaked at 250 celsius", you post:

• three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC
  
• At any given location, the duration of (air, not steel) temperatures near 1,000ºC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500ºC or below.

Frankly, I'm confused. Did you originally mean the temperature of the steel caused by heating due to the fire? But even if that's what you were saying, you posted a quote from the NIST report stating that they tested samples of steel that indicated they had reached temperatures over 250ºC.

I just happened to run across this ?pic">picture while looking for the quote in the next section of my post. Odd how the ends of the clearly visible columns are all broken at the splice point. I think one can "reasonably infer that the pieces simply broke at their joints" for the ones shown in that picture.

I wonder if you have read the complete paragraph and the one that immediately follows it from the JOM article by Edgar and Musso that you quoted.

"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire." Edgar and Musso

As strange as this may seem, I think they are saying that the steel failed because of the fires.

I initially responded because you said "math disproves it." (The "official story" that is.) Perhaps you will be showing some math in an upcoming post. If you know of a series of calculations that shows something, share it - I'm not afraid of doing a little math. But so far you haven't shown anything new. (Well, I have not seen the 35 ft vaporizing steel thing before.)

Either math is able to disprove the "official story", or it isn't. If you won't even give a reasonable attempt at showing how math can do such a thing, why should I believe you when you say that it can?

- Make7

I post on a number of forums, all with different allowable code. Thanks for the DU hint.
Did you read the article I linked at the beginning of all this? It is a physics document published for peer review. It does answer the "math disproves it" question. I would have to cut and paste the whole thing to make the point though.
The fall time, I have seen a lot of video, but none that I could claim any secure chain of evidence on. Most seems to show approx. 10 seconds. I am in the middle of a site reorganization, but I left open directory links on the
http://www.blastedreality.net/library.html page

Oh, and let me get back to you on the formula question. It is in the works. Most of what I was trying to push in the first place was Prof. Jones's Paper. He does a great job. If you can find mistakes or faults in it let me know.

Actually, you can use quite a few standard html tags on DU - although some things will not work - tables for instance, and some other random things aren't supported. You can also use inline CSS, which will let you do all sorts of stuff, but I think the main idea here is to present things in a manner that allows people jumping into the discussion to easily see if you are quoting from another poster or source. Just my two cents.

I read Professor Jones' paper back when it was first brought up around here. My impression was that he was essentially saying things that had already been said, as well as copying and pasting a lot of material. I guess I was really thinking he would get into more academic treatment of the subject and use some of his physics education and knowledge to shed some new light on the matter. Perhaps, he did do a more in depth study and the paper available on the web is written more for the layperson. I did find the following statement interesting when it was issued by the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology at BYU:

"The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

If I get a chance I'll read it again and maybe come up with something more specific. I do agree with him that the video and photographic evidence should be released to allow for independent review of the material.

About the collapse times, I still haven't seen any videos that would suggest less than 13 seconds for the South Tower and 15 seconds for the North. There is good footage of the North Tower collapse in 911 Eyewitness - it is nowhere near 10 seconds. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a video for the South Tower, but I don't remember seeing one that would suggest a 10 second collapse. Some well-known controlled demolition proponents give the times for the collapses around 15 seconds. Even this video link on your site shows it takes more than 10 seconds. (Assuming that the video is real time.)

- Make7

The vid from my site shows 11 or 12 seconds depending on which part you use as reference. It starts at 6 seconds and the upper floors reach the ground at 18 seconds. Of course, there are two things to consider about that time: the angle of the fall and the disintegration of the floors. The first is easy, the second... I have about every angle possible on video and I don't see why they would turn to dust on the way down. That is just something to think about. I have heard "reentry" as possibility. I have said a few times that the tower was a vampire and you just can't see Buffy staking it because she is tiny. I like my hypothesis.

She would be too small to see in the debris. Additionally, around the same time her show ended due to her falling to her death. She came back, don't worry.

As to the rest of your points, I concede. I did not give this debate adequate thought. I am sorry. I began with a poorly phrased argument that became a series of hurried and poorly chosen attempts at validation. Also, I did not bring my A game. So, you win.

...on the part of some people on all sides of this issue to repeat information without first evaluating it in some fashion. We have all been guilty of this at one time or another, but this debate has been going on for a long time now and the odds are not getting any better for someone coming up with that definitive proof that people have been seeking. I would truly like to see something proven one way or the other, and am always curious when someone claims to have such proof, but I have yet to see it.

I still think it is very difficult to determine the precise times for the collapses due to the lack of visibility issues due to the dust. I still think 12 seconds is a little short, but I can certainly understand how someone could interpret it that way.

I enjoy discussing things, even when it is unlikely that anyone will change their position. Having to defend a point of view helps to refine the points one is trying to make and also allows the opportunity to view things from the other perspective, which hopefully leads to a better understanding of the issue.

Just a quick comment about that illegal code issue, I haven't found a solution to that one yet. (Well, you can copy the image and host it on a webpage or image server renaming it with a valid link.) I think it usually is caused by a semi-colon. You can make a text link to the image like this:

    [link:?pic|picture]

Which gives this result:

    ?pic">picture

Basically use the DU link tag and put "?pic" after the image address. (Actually you can type anything you want after the "?".)

- Make7

It seems like every second-rate engineer with a bank account lined up to get into the spin zone.

This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures.

Prove it. Show me one "buckling failure" in just one of those "slender" core columns.

Better yet, show me 47.

and they don't show any buckling, either. Not a trace.

...in anything posted by Reverend X concerning that part of the discussion. If there was, perhaps you could point it out to me.

BTW - Good job on being able to differentiate between core columns and perimeter columns. What other incredibly obvious piece of information will you feel compelled to post about next? I can hardly wait...

- Make7

point out the "distortions" and "buckling failures" in any of this "slender structural steel," which managed to fall a quarter mile and still stay straight?

Finally, we agree on something. :)

First, please provide evidence supporting your assertion that those columns in the ?pic">picture fell a quarter of a mile.

- Make7

The quoted words are taken from a passage about the additional stresses caused by the fires that is believed by the authors to have led to the failure of the steel structure in the building.

Unless you can show some reason why this steel was in the area of the fires, there is no reason to believe they would exhibit the failures associated with those fires.

By the same logic, if you cannot provide an explanation that would indicate the columns in that picture fell "a quarter mile", there is no reason to believe they would be bent in a way that would indicate that they fell that distance.

If you want to frame your question in such a fashion, be prepared to provide some reasoning for the assumptions you have made. If you are unwilling to do so, don't expect anyone to take you seriously enough to actually answer.

- Make7

structural damage caused by fuel and/or secondary fires in WTC 1, 2, or 7, and I don't expect there ever will be.

... that you were talking about the picture that was in your post:


Were you not talking about that picture? If not, why did you say "please point out the 'distortions' and 'buckling failures' in any of this 'slender structural steel,' " followed by the picture?

Perhaps you just need to explain your requests in more detail. Either I misinterpreted what you were trying to ask, or you have changed the scope of your query since making that post for some reason.

Maybe it's just an innocent mistake. :eyes:

- Make7

I think it is obvious that he is not referring to the core columns in the sentence that you quoted.

- Make7

as in Dr. "I'm not a structural engineer, but I play one on TV" Eagar.

But I'm sure it was just an innocent mistake. :eyes:

... in his paper on the subject?

Can a Professor of Physics not see that Eagar is "physics-challenged? If he realizes it and still uses his work to support his case, does that mean that you would also consider the Professor's work to be propaganda? And if the Professor does not realize it, that certainly calls into question the Professor's knowledge in his area of expertise.


What do you feel the motivation behind it was then?

- Make7

59. A citation is obviously not an endorsement.

Give me the context if you want me to explain the citation.

But why would this Professor use him as a source at all if Eagar is obviously a "physics-challenged propagandist"? Why would he lower himself to using such information? Why not just get it from a less "physics-challenged" source?

Here is the context (although I was originally referring to the part of the first section quoted below that appeared in this post by Reverend X):


- Make7

You ever watch Colombo? Never mind, that's neither here not there.
I think we might have been looking at it wrong. The Official Story relies on the "Pancake Effect". The general understanding is that once the collapse began, a constantly accelerating mass moved downward increasing in mass as it did. That is false. The video you referenced
http://www.blastedreality.net/library/south.mpeg
shows nothing to even suggest that. Between the initial movement at 6 seconds and the end of the collapse at 18 seconds it shows a constantly decreasing mass passing through the dust clouds that had previously been the lower floors. 15 seconds after it began, even the dust was settling. The time, even for the dust, is well outside the window of possibility for a pancake effect style collapse.
That would take at least 30 seconds. I'll tell you why in a second.
First. You will never see an equation that absolutely expresses the event. Actually, it is a series of events all connected, but that too, will never be expressed as an equation. There are too many debatable variables involved to make a math puzzle out of it.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=d63b85b38de60a4bbfae056fc94eeca6&showtopic=4299&st=0
There is a great link to why. It is amazing how little actual, verifiable information there is on the construction of the WTC Towers. As is there is no way too define the M value of either tower. Without documentation covering not only the original materials used to construct the towers, but also the 30 years worth of accumulation experienced by the world's largest office space. No M, no simple formula, no simple solution.
What we know is that damage occurred between floors 78 and 84 in the South Tower, 92 and 98 in the North Tower and that somewhere in that area the destructive chain of events began. To avoid debate, I will work with the lowest floor of each to allow for the highest possible mass when considering the energy available for the events.

The South Tower consisted of 32 floors of material above the initiation point and 78 below. Now let's follow the events. Motion began with floor 79 falling into floor 78 with sufficient force to pulverize it. Given that both floors are made of like materials, then the equal and opposite reaction of this is the destruction of floor 79 also. This is evidenced in the flow of destroyed materials exiting the perimeter of the building. The velocity and mass become the force expended by this destruction. At the moment of impact, there is insufficient force to allow acceleration from that point. Any acceleration of the floors above 79 works directly against the integrity of the falling mass. Each floor experiences resistance proportional to its proximity to the point of impact and simultaneously experiences force proportional to the falling mass above it.
This event necessarily leads to the next point of impact. floor 80 falls to floor 77. Take into consideration the remnants of the previous floors and the distance from the previous impact point. Also take into consideration that the overall mass falling has decreased as evidenced by the materials visibly outside of the original perimeter of the building. Remember that the unconnected debris outside of that perimeter no longer has any effect on subsequent impacts. Follow this pattern of collision 70 more times.
As footage of these events shows. The upper mass succumbs to the forces impacting it rather quickly. Significant portions of the falling mass change direction and leave the perimeter of resistance at angles from 90 degrees to 45 degrees. It is also important to note that even though the first two floors to collide are similar in mass and strength, with each successive collision the disparity between upper and lower floors increases in favor of the lower floors. Also with each successive collision the falling section loses mass. As can be seen in most videos, within 4 seconds of its collapse the original mass is non existent in regards to its effect on the destruction of the tower below it. Any matter put into motion by the original mass loses its integrity as a direct result of being put in motion.
The mutual destruction of both sections of the tower is impossible. The distance between any given point of impact and the next point of impact is never significantly more than the distance between the second collision's floors at the moment of the first collision. Yes there will be independence of motion amongst the falling floors, but each difference of velocity between one falling floor and the floor immediately below it becomes force against the integrity of their materials. Take into consideration all of the different vectors of momentum and the upper mass must take the path of least resistance which is to break up and fall away from the building. That is evidenced in every video showing the destructive events. The mass moving away from building leaves insufficient mass to carry out a global collapse of the building. Not my terminology. Global Collapse is a horrible phrase that sounds scientific but carries no precedent. But the definition is total structural failure. I agree with it as a definition of what happened, just not in its use in regards to pancakes or any other breakfast food inspired bullshit. The support structure of each tower failed in 15 seconds or less.
The acceleration necessary for any matter to travel the distance in the time given depends on the force of gravity and the non expenditure of its own velocity . The force necessary to destroy sufficient matter to account for the debris found at the WTC relies on the expenditure of that velocity and the retention of the falling mass. We can see that the mass dissipates as the structural integrity of the matter fails.
Even without those interdependent factors, the visual evidence refutes the official theory. Work out the details for the south tower's collapse, then do it over again using approximately 50% starting mass for the North tower. It only had 18 floors of mass to initiate the events, yet it exhibits an equal or greater amount of energy use in its destruction.
Come on Make 7, your attention to detail could not have allowed you to overlook these details. You have the skills to work out each event. You have the ability to see any flaws in my logic. You have the knowledge to translate this into a formula. Let's do it.

but I should be able get to it tomorrow or Monday.

- Make7

For a progressive collapse to occur, the load on the remaining structure must exceed the ability of that structure to support it. It is irrelevant whether or not you think the video shows the mass was decreasing because significant amounts of debris were falling outside the perimeter of the building. As long as the mass remaining inside the perimeter amounted to a load greater than what the structure could hold, it would fail. I doubt if one could even make an approximation of the mass remaining within the perimeter vs. the mass falling outside the perimeter just based on videos.



You are the one that keeps bringing up the fact that this can be a math problem, not me. I don't think I've ever said it would be a simple solution.



This is some information available in the NIST report. (In case you haven't seen it.)



I disagree with the characterization that the first collapse was sufficient to "pulverize" the floor below it. All that was needed was for the load on the intact floor to be greater than its ability to support it. Both floors would not necessarily be "pulverized" at the beginning of the collapse. Portions of the concrete floor would most likely be breaking apart creating part of the dust seen exiting the building, but there were other materials that would create dust as the collapse progressed. (i.e. ceiling tiles, fireproofing, drywall, etc. Although more and more of the concrete would break up as the collapse progressed.)



Why is there insufficient force to allow acceleration from that point? I'm not exactly clear on the meaning of that last sentence. (It's late and I'm pretty tired.) Why is the resistance of each floor proportional to its proximity to the point of impact?



I don't think that is accurate. As the upper floors lose their structural integrity, a greater portion of that mass will fall outside the building than will remain inside it, but that doesn't mean that the remaining mass in addition to the mass from the continually collapsing lower floors would not exceed the load limits of the lower building structure.



The downward acceleration of gravity is what is causing the building to break apart. The force of that mass acting to overcome the resistance below it is destroying the structure above and below the current point of collapse. If you are going to claim that there is not enough mass remaining within the perimeter of the building for a progressive collapse, I think you may want to use some math to back it up. You said that there is little verifiable information about the construction of the towers. How are you able to determine that there would be insufficient mass remaining to overload the building structure if you have so little information about what that structure actually was?

Near the beginning of your post you said: "The time, even for the dust, is well outside the window of possibility for a pancake effect style collapse. That would take at least 30 seconds."

And later on you stated: "The mutual destruction of both sections of the tower is impossible."

So is the argument that the plane impacts and subsequent fires couldn't have caused a progressive collapse because they fell too fast? Or was it not possible simply because they collapsed at all?

- Make7

Do you think that the 6 frames of video that encompass the duration of the impact is an adequate sample to determine the exact speed of the aircraft at each frame? If so, have you, or has anyone that you know of, done the calculations for that?

If it slowed from 500 mph to 450 mph, would you be able to tell that just by looking at a few frames of video?

The last couple of frames showing the impact definitely have more than just an intact airplane and the unblemished facade of a building in them. Are you saying that the 'debris clouds' visible do not include any portion of the plane? None at all?

So, if you actually have something more than your opinion that the plane passed through a glass, steel, and aluminum wall without showing adequate signs of resistance, why not just present it? (BTW - that's kinda what i meant when I asked if you had some evidence.)

You'll have to forgive me if your opinion fails to convince me, but considering the rigorous researching method you displayed with the original post of this thread, I find that it somehow fails to sway me. Tell me, did you actually think that not hearing the sound of the plane in a single video actually proved something?

Other than the fact that the sound of the plane could be heard in the footage used in your original post, and that other videos where the engine sounds are readily apparent are easy to find, I think you might really be on to something there.

-Make7

where plane #2 is about to impact and there is a man who does not look up until the plane actually hits even though it is right above him. The conclusion to the person commenting on the video was that the man in the video couldn't hear it. I think that is probably on web fairy, too. If I find it, I'll post it.

everyone has perfect hearing!

enough to have considered that myself.
I know that the silent plane observations contribute to the hologram plane theory which is somewhere that I would rather not go, and it's not how people are going to be convinced to question the official 9-11 story, but if there is some sort of phenomenon happening, I am interested in knowing why, even if it ends up meaning nothing.

When he hears the impact, it's about a second later. The plane will have already entered the building.

Assuming that it is approximately 1,200 feet from the impact area to the street, then it would take approximately 1 second for him to hear the sound (1,116.437 ft/sec).

Jason Anders was standing beside the entrance to the West Street footbridge when the second plane hit. He scribbled notes as the fireball burst from the building almost directly overhead: Explosion. 90th Floor?? Southwest?? He hadn't seen the impact and didn't realize a plane had caused the explosion until some time later.
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/AmericanBureauofShipping.htm

Anders view of WTC2 would have been roughly the same as this:



Strange how he never heard those loud 757 engines.

thewebfairy is pretty far-out amongst we, the far-out. i'm not saying it's intentional disinfo - as many suggest, but there seems to be no boundaries to the conjecture over there. maybe it's good to question eeeeeeverything, but the pod stuff and holograms and aliens... ?

you can hear the plane, but the reason it's not as loud as you'd expect is (as stated before) due to the velocities involvolved. critics of the 911 truth movement love to point out this stuff to reveal how willing we are to consider aaaaaanthing. there's a fine line between being open to everything and projecting it.

b

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/webfairy.html

perdy much sums up that site.

Has the WebFairy mentioned aliens before? That would be news to me.

500 yards out? Could it have cruised that 10 seconds of flight? I really don't recall at any time ever hearing
jet engines. Many camera"s on hand by that time. If you find definitive sounds from flight 175 please send it
to me.
Thanks...

BTW..if you haven't heard the massive explosions prior to the collapse of all 3 World Trade Center buildings.

see it here.. http://madcowpolitics.com/documentaries.htm

scroll down to Eyewitness to 911..

Thanks again for the links I'll get back to you later.

I watched it once (although Part 1 was cut off for some reason and the video and audio seemed to be out of sync for much of the documentary), but I haven't really had time to dig into it yet.

I do have some initial reservations however:

• It is dreadfully easy to add audio to internet videos like this. (Not that I'm saying that is what happened, just that is would be very easy to do.)
  
• I think the case being made with the audio needs to be confirmed with audio from other sources.
  
• I don't know why it took so long for this to come out. Seems if someone thought it of great importance, they would get it out as far and wide as quickly as possible. (But there could, of course, be a very good reason for the delay.)

I did notice that there was a very good clip of the North Tower's collapse - one of the best I've seen for trying to determine the actual collapse time. And there was also a news reporter talking about how much smoke was coming out of WTC7 before it collapsed. Interesting...

-Make7

I had some trouble with #2&3 but the others were good finds, I hadn't seen this angle yet. I do appreciate the
trouble of finding and posting them.

southtower-plane.varick   (It's the first link on that section of the page.)

I do hear the plane before impact, although it is easier to hear what is going on in this version because there are less audio compression artifacts.

BTW, I just happened to run across this Quicktime version while looking for something else this morning. And even though the previous links didn't really take that much time to find, you're welcome.

The www.terrorize.dk/911 site has a nice collection of videos - it's a good place to look if you're trying to find something specific. (Like Post#4 for instance.)

-Make7

revealing. Many small white squibbs of explosive material being ejected from wt2. I hadn't see this. Couple
these videos with the recorded blasts from Eyewitness to 911 and no longer can we believe fire brought down
all 3 buildings.
Good find..you made my day.

...it's actually Danish. I can muddle my way through German to some extent, but not so much with Danish. I believe there is an english translation of that site in the works. (But I've been hearing that for a while now.) Although the site is laid out clearly enough to usually find the information you are looking for rather easily. However, what they are saying about the videos - sometimes I can't even venture a guess.

I'm glad I made your day, but I should let you know that I am not a advocate of the controlled demolition theory. (Certainly not a supporter of the "no planes" theory either.)

-Make7

if that will help

If I have any specific questions about that site in the future, I'll know who to ask.

Like your screen name BTW.

-Make7

listen to the massive explosions heard prior to ALL 3 WTC building collapses. For 4 years I heard REPORTS
claims of explosions but never did I personally hear them until a few days ago. Since Wed. I listened 3x to this video found here. http://madcowpolitics.com/documentaries.htm (best to use earphones)
I urge you to listen. You will not be disappointed. The first time,the first blast I listened to had me saying, "WTF WAS THAT".. WOW. Then Make7 1 minute later, 7 more blasts,seconds later a MAJOR blast followed
by (seconds) WT 2 tilting over with the lower floors in free fall.
Same for WT 1 massive explosions and in less than 1 minute that goes into free fall. The most questionable
of all collapses is WT 7..You should not accept "fire" as the culprit since even NIST, FEMA and 911 Commission would not touch the explosions. Its there Make7 its no lie/forgery/fake/or photo shop. This video
was banned by the FBI. Now its in circulation. You can also look at the creators website..

EYEWITNESS to 911.com there is a trailer there.. good stuff hard facts a 911 no spin zone..

Thanks again for the DANISH site..

that hit WTC2

Has anyone seen the video with the F-15?
(snipped from another site-not my post)
I recently sent you a post by an ironworker who, for 32 years, has ³welded,
cut, sheared, et.,...steel². I have been in contact with this gentleman. He
is a military contractor who builds fuel tanks (currently overseas; name and
location withheld by request).

He sent me the following link to a video clip of a home movie taken on 9/11
of the attack on the WTC:

http://www.blastedreality.net/library/chapter1.wmv

I urge you to download this clip (about 8mb) and watch it VERY carefully. If
you notice, the second tower is struck around the 1:40 mark.

Now, at the 2:40 mark, focus CLOSER to the camera position ‹ not over at the
towers. You will see a white streak moving very fast from left to right. It
occurs about 2/3 up the screen.

If you keep freezing the photo (keep repeating pause/play), you will see
that the object is an F-15; the cockpit and USAF insignia on tail are
visible.

Yet, the official story is still that the NORAD response was 70 miles out.

You will NOT be able to recognize it as an aircraft in real time. The chap
who sent me the clip just happened to see something "flash" past his eyes,
and went back curious to see what it was. He had to freeze it many times (as
did I), for several minutes, before he was able to make out the image. In
fact, I did not even see the flash the first time, it¹s that quick.

Once captured, you can actually see the PILOT in the cockpit. Two people
I¹ve shown this to see the same thing, IF it¹s frozen at the precise moment.

There is another link that I believe is the same plane, but not as clearly
seen as when you freeze this one.

Here is the other link:

http://www.attackonamerica.net/f-15atwtc.mpg

This is same plane, same angle. It was ³trailing² the airliner into the
tower.

You will see it here in this clip at about the halfway mark (no clock on
video link), and it streaks to bottom right hand corner, but it isn¹t as
clear as in the former clip.

What we need is for a professional video/computer expert to take
this clip apart and clean it up.

When I linked the page I got,)&?><)@4/:"!~!!@%&* a full page of gibberish Was that a virus?

The most likely cause is that sometimes when your browser doesn't know how to handle a file, it opens it up as a text file in a page. If it is a movie or a graphic of an unsupported format, it can look like gibberish since it is not supposed to be displayed as text.

Both movies played fine on my computer. You can usually right-click, do a 'Save Target As...', and then double-click the saved file's icon to open it up in your media player. If that doesn't work, you probably don't have the proper player and/or codec to play the video.

-Make7

Yesterday I was passing along a terrific website Eyewitness to 911. Today I went to view it again and it was
pulled off the site. Those explosions resonate in my brain. What were they? Was it coincidence all 3 buildings
collapsed less than 1 minute after the blasts. Hmm...

...was eating up all their "bandwidth". The video is available for download elsewhere - www.question911.com is a pretty good site for large documentary type videos.

Here are my previous comments from Post#17 concerning 911 Eyewitness:

at least it is to me.
www.911eyewitness.com

Ummmm...the first one looks like a bird to me. Even if it were a plane, there is nowhere near the resolution to see a pilot in a cockpit or a USAF insignia on the tail - I can't even make out a cockpit or a tail.


Has the webfairy not done it already?

-Make7

It isn't Superman, but. The guys from http://Physics911.org
have the video. I sent it to them last week. They said they are going to clean up the shot and see. Me personally, I can't make it out. My best guess is it is a bird near the camera's position. As is though, its a question for future investigations.
The Math disproves the Official Story. You want to get behind something, push that. Check out Professor Jones from BYU. Keyword search it. Everything else is speculation. Even the no jet noise bit. How far away was the camera? Most of the video showing the hits camee from Jersey. Only clean shot. Like I said, speculation is pointless. The Physics and the thermal dynamics prove the official story to be invalid. That alone warrants investigation.