PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th Jan 2009, 10:02   #1 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,619
9/11 - time for another look?

I know the howls of protest will arise, but I happened to stumble across this (believe it or not!) while Googling around computer programming help pages.

It appears to be a serious effort by a professional group to call for a review of the 9/11 commission findings on the collapse of the twin towers, and, more interestingly on Tower 7. One piece of interest is the clip of BBC News 24 'announcing' the collapse of Tower 7 20 minutes early, to camera with a shot of the tower still standing behind the presenter.

It is a long video, just under 700mb, runs for well over an hour and originates from ae911truth.org. formed by a group of professional engineers and architects.

I would urge you to at least have a look at it - it is thought provoking, and as the guy says at the end, do not just dismiss it for reasons of "It's too horrible to contemplate" or "They wouldn't do that, would they?".

There are several ways to challenge the suggestions, but I found 'back-tracking' on the logic of the presentation led me to a rather alarming root.

911bft.avi at Index of /pub/911/911.Blueprint.for.Truth.2008.Edition.DVDRip.XviD

Now, over to the wolves.
BOAC is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 10:21   #2 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,699
Quote:
One piece of interest is the clip of BBC News 24 'announcing' the collapse of Tower 7 20 minutes early, to camera with a shot of the tower still standing behind the presenter.
Any thought that it could just have been a mistake? If it was conspiracy rather than cockup, I think a reporter would have been the very last person to have been let in on the secret in advance. "Blimey - can't wait to tell the blokes down the pub how I got this scoop..."

Sorry, BOAC - just (yet) another load of hysterical spotty conspiracy theorists who wear aluminium foil inside their unwashed beanies. Surprised you appear to go for it.
Captain Stable is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 10:57   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 73
Posts: 1,534
In my position of authority I received a letter from this bloke in, IIRC, the Sheffield area. He claimed a number of academic qualifications and that he worked with the OU. He cited an 'eminent' femal US scientist withwhom he worked.

His exposition was written and printed on A5 paper and small font to cram as much as he could on the written page. It was an essay in conspiracy theory and disconnected events that, to him, created a complelling theory.

His main observation was that the time of fall of the top of the tower was the same as an object in freefall and not of one that he expected should have been slowed by underlying collapse.

He had sent it to all chief constables, commanders of military bases, the dear ole beeb, etc.

I gave it my endorsement and passed it on to the appropriate authorities, waste management as I recall.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 11:34   #4 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 662
Quote:
One piece of interest is the clip of BBC News 24 'announcing' the collapse of Tower 7 20 minutes early, to camera with a shot of the tower still standing behind the presenter.
Back drop perhaps? Or a "doctored" clip?

Amazing how you can find such a BBC clip on a conspiracy site yet never on the venerable site itself.
Desert Diner is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 12:18   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Age: 45
Posts: 2
BBC NEWS | The Editors
maliyahsdad is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 12:21   #6 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,619
Quote:
another load of hysterical spotty conspiracy theorists
- except not quite so 'spotty' if you look at the qualifications.

Wader - the towers (according to the video) took 1.5 seconds longer than the 'freefall time' to collapse, which is surprising..

Now, I'm not saying I have 'gone for it', but it is worth viewing, if only to stimulate thought in turgid brains
BOAC is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 12:25   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,699
I think if my brains ever get THAT turgid I shall probably (if not already dead) get them moving with a crossword.

Is there any chance that along with Religion and Politics, PPRuNe could also adopt a policy of banning effing brainless conspiracy theories? Pretty please, Danny?
Captain Stable is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 12:25   #8 (permalink)
bnt
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 685
Why do you anticipate "howls of protest"? Do you think your fellow ppruners are all on the "other side"? It's hardly the first time we've heard about the "truthers" here, and they may have a point - I don't know. So? The Bush regime was re-elected in 2004, despite all that, and is now in its last days.

What is your objection to the official explanation, that thermal expansion of unprotected girders was a major (but not the only) factor in the building's collapse?

As for me: it's over, the buildings are long gone, and if I was really bothered about the history, I would dig in to it more deeply. The fact that investigators (NIST etc.) revised their previous conclusions is neither here nor there - they've done it before, and will do it again: it happens. Since I'm currently studying structural engineering, I'm far more interested in their recommendations for avoiding thermal expansion problems in future buildings - and I don't have to "buy in" to their explanation to accept their recommendations. (Even so: inadequate design for thermal expansion, combined with inadequate insulation of structural members, is hardly conspiracy fodder, is it?)

PS: I give this thread 2-3 hours before closure.No particular reason.
bnt is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 12:56   #9 (permalink)

A Runyonesque Character
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 67
Posts: 1,211
Each time I see one of these diversions, I am struck by the same thought.

If there really was a ‘conspiracy’, it would not have been that difficult for a well-funded, well-connected and well-organised covert group to plant explosives in one, both or indeed all three towers, blow them up and blame it on Al Qaeeda. Job done - no need for complicated, costly and risky adventures with aeroplanes, etc.

As for the wilder assertions about remote-controlled B767s, cruise missile strikes against the Pentagon, etc, a moment’s pause and you would realise that this would take a cast of thousands and a budget running into hundreds of millions while a simple kaboom in Manhattan would suffice.

I’ve done TV interviews in a studio but on the screen I appear to be standing on a city street.
The SSK is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 13:03   #10 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,619
In the remaining time
Quote:
What is your objection to the official explanation,
- whoa! I don't 'have an objection' - I just don't know.

bnt - "Since I'm currently studying structural engineering" - you may find some of the analysis interesting, in that case.
BOAC is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 13:06   #11 (permalink)
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
BOAC

I'm with you. Listening to the "Debate is over" types is tiresome. There is little in creation more worthless than a "Gummint" investigation. 9/11 is no exception. A former investigator myself (criminal defense), I never lapse into immediate dismissal of objective debate.

"Free Fall"?- Mostly, (my conclusion) due to the way each floor was "clipped" to the exterior shear not due to molten Steel (there was none.).

#7- This is a puzzler; w/o external insult, why did it collapse at all?

Pilotage- As a pilot, I will never be completely convinced that Hatta could fly that well, or any of them, actually. Especially the Pentagon. To impact in that area at an airspeed of ~400 knots? Just at the point where lawn meets wall? Incredible.

My training commands me to be sceptical of all evidence, let alone net/chat

Sceptical, not dismissive.

AF
 
Old 14th Jan 2009, 13:36   #12 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 73
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOAC View Post
- the towers (according to the video) took 1.5 seconds longer than the 'freefall time' to collapse, which is surprising..
Not if you do the maths.

An object in vaccuum, from 1368 feet will take about 9.25 seconds to travel the distance assuming g=32 fps.

An object that takes 10.75 seconds to reach the ground will have been dropped from a height of about 1848 feet. A significant difference.

Doing it the other way, an object in free fall is accelerated at 32 fps. Given the extra 1.5 seconds for the WTC collapse the acceleration is only 23.69 fps.

Visually it seems pretty fast - 1.5 seconds. Apply Newton's formula we can see that the story is quite different.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 13:41   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,699
No - objects do not continuously accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 (or 32 f/s^2). ALL objects have a terminal velocity, so to assume constant acceleration is to underestimate the time they should take to hit the ground.

So, basically, the conspiracy theory is based upon an error that a GCSE maths pupil would lose marks for, let alone a qualified engineer.

Don't you just love the ways the conspiracies are always presented with "I don't say this is the truth - I just think it's worth looking at"
Captain Stable is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 13:44   #14 (permalink)
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't forget

The debris at the top is similar to a piston as it descends down and through the bldg. (cylinder). Friction plays an important role here, this is not a void.
 
Old 14th Jan 2009, 13:48   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nr Salisbury UK
Posts: 93
I just love the (now typical) furore that erupts every time someone posts on one of these old chestnuts. Hamas, Princes William & Harry and a few others are pretty guaranteed the same effect!

Now, let me get comfy... In your own time - Go on!
seanbean is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 14:00   #16 (permalink)
airfoilmod
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Seanbean

Where are you on AGW? Is the debate over? You may want to get less comfortable with some "official" material. The 9/11 commission was a technically challenged and politically charged exercise, besides, the science is always interesting, to some. If not to you, I wonder at your ease. Why are you wasting your time on something you seem to deplore?

Just askin'

AF

I get that you endorse the official explanation. No Poll asking the American public if they accept the Warren commision's findings results in less than 70 % disagreement. You are in the minority here, also, if it matters.
 
Old 14th Jan 2009, 14:03   #17 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
Light Westerly is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 14:04   #18 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 73
Posts: 1,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Stable View Post
No - objects do not continuously accelerate at 9.8 m/s^2 (or 32 f/s^2). ALL objects have a terminal velocity, so to assume constant acceleration is to underestimate the time they should take to hit the ground.
Who are you sniping at? I did say in a vaccuum.

The letter I received from the CT said the times for free-fall and the collapsing top floor were the same - the collapsing building had no retarding effect.

BOAC says the time was 1.5 seconds longer. This of course could, as you say, be due to the building reaching its TV, but this is wholly unlikely was even a low TV is not reached until dropped from a much greater height. What you do have is retardation through drag or through resistance from the building.

This retardation is equivalent to the difference between 23.65 fps and 32 fps. I contend it is not attributable soley to aerodynamic drag.
Wader2 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 14:23   #19 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Next door to my next door neighbour
Posts: 75
Hey.....and the other week as well one of them pesky UFO's hit one of them there wind generator type thingys.

The truth is out there !!
Beer_n_Tabs is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2009, 15:07   #20 (permalink)
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt S
"I don't say this is the truth - I just think it's worth looking at"
- you've got it I have doubts about some of the content, other content is significant food for thought. I do not have a closed mind so that I cannot LOOK at something like this. I bring it to the attention of all those with enquiring minds and they can make those minds up themselves.

Apparently the BBC have accidentally 'lost' the footage of the Tower 7 news item to which the programme referred - "cock-up and not conspiracy" is their reply.

By the way, Beer_n - it was a flying cow.
BOAC is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 14:54.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1