Conspiracy Theories

[Hampus Andersson]

If we flip it around.

Would you say the aluminium wall has the highest chance of surviving if the speeds were low compared to high with a steel bullet?

EDIT:oops 2 post made at the same time i posted mine.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Steel is an alloy of other elements for one so Aluminum vs Steel could go either way.

Two that come to mind for a softer material penetrating a harder material is a chisel on a diamond and paper cuts. As I said though there are some variables for this one though, it depends on it's shape, thickness, etc.

A bullet's shape, mass, and velocity would be the best way to penetrate a harder material. The shape would make it aerodynamic and allow it to "cut" through the material easier, and the mass/velocity give it the momentum to propel itself through the material.

The bullet would probably be more successful than the cube of aluminium presuming they're the same mass and have the same velocity.

Also the equation for momentum is Δp=m*v ... p is momentum in kg*m/s, m is mass in kg, v is velocity in m/s. The higher the mass/velocity (both are directly proportional to momentum) the more momentum it has.

Are you sure you can actually penetrate a diamond with a chisel?
I´m not sure but i think the only thing that can scratch or penetrate diamond is another diamond. Due to the molecular structure.
I think you might be able to chatter the diamond with a chisel but i don´t think you can actually penetrate it or scratch it with a chisel which is a softer material.

Ok nice we have concluded that a bullet is or anything similar to that shape where all energy is focused on a smaller point is more successful then a cube,

But we need something, a diagram or something showing that you can indeed penetrate a harder material with a softer one if you increase the speed.

 

[Chris Preston]

That question can't really be answered... it depends on the thickness of the aluminum wall. The chances could also be greater for either scenario; if the speeds are low and the mass is high than that could have the greatest chance, think of a cannon ball for that one. If the speeds are high and the mass is low that could have the greatest chance just like a bullet. They could be equal as well so I don't know exactly what you want me to say for that question.

Also to your last post: Oops, the chisel/saw would have to be a diamond chisel/saw my bad. We don't need a diagram it's implied knowledge that you can break a harder object with a softer one presuming it's thin or the softer object is travelling a lot faster and its speed would have to depend on the thickness of the thicker object.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

That question can't really be answered... it depends on the thickness of the aluminum wall. The chances could also be greater for either scenario; if the speeds are low and the mass is high than that could have the greatest chance, think of a cannon ball for that one. If the speeds are high and the mass is low that could have the greatest chance just like a bullet. They could be equal as well so I don't know exactly what you want me to say for that question.

Yea i get what you are saying.

Basically if you have a paper thin steel wall and a cube of aluminium you could easily break the wall.

Perhaps i need to make both of them equal in size and thickness in order to make the argument that a stronger material will win everytime against a softer material?

I promise it´s not much left, but you have to understand i need to get certain basics confirmed first.
Just keep answering the questions as best you can.

I really need to find some papers on this...

 

[Miguel Gonzalez]

As long as we're on the subject of physics, WTC 1&2 came down at near free-fall. Impossible without control demolition clearing the area below it would be impossible for the tower to fall that perfectly.

Also there's lots of interviews with the designers of the buildings, they were built to withstand multiple plane impacts ( I'm fairly certain it's a requirement above x feet). They don't make these things easy to topple...

I'm on my phone at work if you want videos I can post when I get home or you can just YouTube it.

Btw I'll leave this here:

 

[Miguel Gonzalez]

1 more. Check the date.

 

[Chris Preston]

As long as we're on the subject of physics, WTC 1&2 came down at near free-fall. Impossible without control demolition clearing the area below it would be impossible for the tower to fall that perfectly.

Also there's lots of interviews with the designers of the buildings, they were built to withstand multiple plane impacts ( I'm fairly certain it's a requirement above x feet). They don't make these things easy to topple...

I doubt they were designed to withstand massive passenger planes though most likely little planes owned by people and even if they were it's nearly impossible to plan for it. To be honest the buildings held up pretty well all things considered. The fact that the towers fell straight down is a little odd, however also remember when they fell the building was surrounded with dust and debris so we don't know for sure if it fell perfectly straight down or not.

What's with the pictures Miguel?

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Chris, we have to put the harder vs softer material on ice before we know more but i will move on and present my theory.

but first, with what we have discusses about the hard vs soft thing, notice anything in this video which seems strange?

It´s a slow motion shot of the second plane impact, look at how the plane enters the building.

Would you agree that the very tips of an airplane wing, whether it´s the top or side ones, are for the most part light weight aluminium?

Imagine we delete the airplane except fro the very edges of all the wings.
Would they be able to cut through 6cm 2,5 inch steel twice as it´s rectangled pillars?

Do you see that in the video, even the lightest parts of an airplane cuts through the steel like it was made of butter?

Keep in mind the wing tips on an airplane is pretty much only aluminium. Relatively thin aluminium at that.

But it has no problem cutting through 6cm thick steel twice.

the body penetrating the building i can see due to the incredible mass but the wings are super light weight actually. Even the very tips of the wings managed to cut through 6cm thick steel twice.
Just think about that for a moment, 6cm thick steel twice.. by aluminium.

 

[Miguel Gonzalez]

I doubt they were designed to withstand massive passenger planes though most likely little planes owned by people and even if they were it's nearly impossible to plan for it. To be honest the buildings held up pretty well all things considered. The fact that the towers fell straight down is a little odd, however also remember when they fell the building was surrounded with dust and debris so we don't know for sure if it fell perfectly straight down or not.

What's with the pictures Miguel?

The pictures are terrorism planning manuals pre- 9-11. And yes the building are designed to withstand commercial airliner impacts (multiple per buildimg)

Watch the videos they fell at free-fall. The pools of molten metal below the wreckage( of ALL 3 buildings) were completely ignored in the "official" report. Only thing that will melt metal like that and keep reacting is thermite. Jet fuel doesn't do that.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I doubt they were designed to withstand massive passenger planes though most likely little planes owned by people and even if they were it's nearly impossible to plan for it. To be honest the buildings held up pretty well all things considered. The fact that the towers fell straight down is a little odd, however also remember when they fell the building was surrounded with dust and debris so we don't know for sure if it fell perfectly straight down or not.

What's with the pictures Miguel?

They were actually designed to withstand a 707.

This is from the Manager Frank A.Demartini, from WTC Construction & Project Management.

"The buildings were designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it.
That was the largest plane at the time.
I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito net on your screen door. This intense grid and the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.
It really does nothing to the screen netting"

 

[Miguel Gonzalez]

It's also with pointing out that there were only 7 fighter jets protecting the entire USA that morning because "hijacked airplane training missions" we're happening all across the US. The closest responding squadron was sent to North Carolina that morning. If. Plane is reported hijacked and called in fighters are usually scrambled within 15 minutes. The first response lifted off the Tarmac 80 minutes after the report.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Chris? What happened?
Again you are free to shoot down the airplane theory there if you want.

Although i think it´s definitely something we can discuss further.. would you agree?

I found this Chris, Kinetic energy penetrator.

But the problem is that in order for these missiles to work they need to be filled with the densest material you can find, like depleted uranium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_penetrator

Which gears a little towards the need to have a denser material to penetrate a less dense material.

EDIT: I have a guy now with programs and he´s completely objective and he´s doing some calculations right now regarding this issue.

If we get something interesting i´ll let you all know. If we don´t ill also let you know, how can i possibly dodge it

EDIT: apparently it was too many variables and we haven´t found all the info needed to make an accurate simulation. But will update when i know more.

 

[Chris Preston]

The pictures are terrorism planning manuals pre- 9-11. And yes the building are designed to withstand commercial airliner impacts (multiple per buildimg)

Watch the videos they fell at free-fall. The pools of molten metal below the wreckage( of ALL 3 buildings) were completely ignored in the "official" report. Only thing that will melt metal like that and keep reacting is thermite. Jet fuel doesn't do that.

You realize there was a terrorist attack on the world trade centers in 1993 right? So the chances of terrorists targeting it again were high and look what happened, exactly that. They wanted to be prepared in case that did happen so why is that suspicious.

I've checked multiple sources and they all say, and you really don't need to be an expert to know this, jet fuel burns hotter than normal fuel. It's roughly 900-1000 degrees Celsius. That heat is more than enough to at least weaken the steel and if it's been weakened the weight above it will be enough to collapse it.

Also their safety measures came up a little short, so what. Oil companies claim they have safety measures to make sure nothing goes wrong and we've found out that's not always the case right B.P. As I said above the intense heat from the burning jet fuel and debris was enough to weaken the metal frames which collapsed the building.

The plane was travelling at lets say 450km/h which is 125m/s. At that speed the wings could easily cut through 6cm thick metal. What did you expect to happen if your hypothesis is correct, the plane bounce off the building?

Btw sorry I took a while to respond, I was playing Skyrim ^_^ Very addicting game.

 

[Miguel Gonzalez]

You realize there was a terrorist attack on the world trade centers in 1993 right?

I've checked multiple sources and they all say, and you really don't need to be an expert to know this, jet fuel burns hotter than normal fuel. It's roughly 900-1000 degrees Celsius. That heat is more than enough to at least weaken the steel and if it's been weakened the weight above it will be enough to collapse.

Jet fuel burning hotter is not the issue, even if it WEAKENED the steel it's not hot enough to straight melt it, let alone stay molten for days after the fact. What you're talking about is the "official" pancake theory ie, fuel weakened the steel and caused the collapse. If that were the case the wreckage would have its inner core still standing and all the floors would've collapsed in a neat pile.

And I was aware if the 93 attack, did you know the anti-terrori bill they tried to pass afterwards failed because not enough people died? Legislation eventually passed after okc being 2 years later.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I've checked multiple sources and they all say, and you really don't need to be an expert to know this, jet fuel burns hotter than normal fuel. It's roughly 900-1000 degrees Celsius. That heat is more than enough to at least weaken the steel and if it's been weakened the weight above it will be enough to collapse it.

Although there is video evidence of molten steel dripping from the building.
There is no airplane fuel in the world that can melt Steel.
It´s also not accounted for in the NIST report. They deny such a thing.

Judge for yourself,

 

[Hampus Andersson]

The plane was travelling at lets say 450km/h which is 125m/s. At that speed the wings could easily cut through 6cm thick metal. What did you expect to happen if your hypothesis is correct, the plane bounce off the building?

Yes parts of the plane would not penetrate the building. that´s what i would expect at least.

Take the rear wing, it is an aluminium structure that would bounce of the building.
It contains no fuel, no other stuff, just aluminium, carbon fiber and possibly glass fiber.
And a steering axle for the rear flap.

i think the massive steel columns would have no problem with that little mass.
The rear wing according to the video is not affected by the main plain, it just dissappear right into the building.

Actually nothing of the airplane is later visible, You can for example see a woman standing in the hole after the "plane" had crashed.

How can that be when temperatures where so hot they could literally BEND steel.

Wonder woman?

-

For anyone who believes the pancake theory you need to think about three things.

1. Newton´s third law, if the theory is correct then it would not fall at near free-fall.
It would be a little resistance as every floor packed on top of the other.

2. Where are the pancakes? All concrete was turned into dust.

3. How much energy would be required to pulverize concrete?
Would enough energy be created by the falling top?

Remember the concrete was pulverized into a fine dust that covered the whole city.

You would need IMMENSE energy to pulverize concrete.

There´s 627 tonnes of concrete on ONE floor of the WTC 1.
This is counting everything, not just the floor.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

This guy knew exactly what happened and what caused the building to collapse.

NIST should have called him because it took them seven years to reach EXACTLY the same conclusion.

It should be noted that the jetfuel burnt out pretty quickly. As i said, a woman was seen standing in the hole of where the supposed plane hit.

If the fires were so intense that it caused the building to collapse it would be impossible for this woman to just stand there.

Notice the damage also. Follow the left "wing" and you´ll see that to the far left, the steel is still somewhat intact.

and if the airplane wins are horizontal then the hole does not match.
As shown here.

If an airplane have the same sized wings on each side then it would be similar sized markings next to the big hole.

The right wing of the plane looks awfully short if you compare it to the big hole.
But on the other side it´s cracked first diagonally then horizontally.

and the red circle. What hit the building there?

 

[David Ignjatovic]

How do people explain the controlled demolition of the WTC twins?
How do people explain the pulverizing vs breaking into sizeable chunks wrt the concrete if not for extremely potent pre planted explosives?

 

[David Ignjatovic]

Some people lack the intelligence to deduce the truth[nothing can be done about that], some people lack the knowledge[information the solution], but others lack the courage to face the truth, cause the fact is, regardless of who the exact individuals responsible for this are, they're members of the media, military and governments[in many cases countries other than the USA as well], so their concept of the authorities as the good guys gets blown apart and they're too afraid to accept it.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Architects and Engineers for the 9/11 truth.