9/11 Loose change 2nd edition

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1About 1 hour 20 minutes long.As I watched it I found many things wrong with the claims made. But as a whole I found it interesting, and I would like to see some questions answered.1. I totally can understand how the buildings fell, they were designed to fall straight down. Probably the force of the falling tower snapped all the welds, between floors.
note: I am not sure if they were welded or not. It is possible that they were put together with shear bolts, which would have snapped easily.2. The fire in the towers was more than just jet fuel, so the 1488F temp is wrong. I spent 11 years fire proofing hospitals in NYC and I have a good education on what it takes to bring a building down in a fire. As I watched the buildings burn, I was telling my wife on the phone that they would be down in less than 2 hours, and that I did not understand why the NYFD (the ones who teach us this stuff) were sending people into the buildings.3. The hole in the ground from flight 93 was consistant with the hole in the pentagon, and twin towers. A signature left from a high speed impact, not a plane that just took off and was going 150mph.4. Any cameras that would have caught the plane flying into the pentagon, would not show a clear picture, if they could catch the plane at all. Traveling 530mph, and 1 or 2 frames per second from a security cam, do not make for clear video. As a matter of fact a plane traveling at 530mph is doing 777feet per second(7 times the length of the plane), and could easily be missed completely by the camera.5. The force of a 100 ton plane slaming into the towers would have shook the whole building to peices, that is why the lobby was torn apart. The outside columns of the towers were part of the structure.
I wonder just how far the building swayed upon impact, and how much damage was done.These are only a few points I can think that go against the "documentary", but there are many more that I cannot answer, and need answering. Especially things about the gold, and illegal trading. Seems like good motives.Either way, if it is true that the government conspired this, then I think it is time for a revolution.I also like to add, that one of the men on flight 93, was a resident of my area, and many people knew him, and he is missed.Edited by riVeRraT, : fixed feet per secondEdited by riVeRraT, : and the length of the planeEdited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

I was thinking the same thing. Right. The buildings were designed to withstand impact from a jetliner actually, but not a 2000 degree+ fire burning, after the fireproofing was stripped from the support columns. Had the fireproofing not been stripped, the buildings may stood for another hour or so.It was my understanding that they were in the process of adding a third coat of fireproofing to the columns, to bring the fire rating to 3 hours. The stuff they use is called monokote, and it's very flaky. It doesn't take much to knock it off.I was wondering about the impact, because of the damage done to the lobby. That damage might have been caused by falling elevators, the motors that run them and/or counter weights. There were many elevator banks, and lots of room for stuff to fall long distances. All the additional explosions may have also been columns falling down the shafts, or refrigeration systems exploding.What also made me laugh in the documentary is he mentions the Empire state building, and claims that a B-52 hit it. Well for a guy that is trying to make scientific claims as to the impossibility that the jetliners that we saw with our own eyes couldn't have taken the buildings down, he should know that it was a B-17 that hit the empire state building, not a B-52. He also makes no comparison to the construction differences between the 2. The Empire state building is built like a brick shit house and did not burn that much. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't twice as strong as the twin towers. Also a B-17 traveling in the fog, probably was going around 100mph, and would not do nearly as much damage as a 100ton jetliner going 500mph.
BTW, my great uncle was one of the architects who surveyed the damage to the building. Not that means anything, but I think it's cool. Diffused into the building.I don't know enough to accurately calculate the actual force, but it should be relatively easy to figure it out.I fooled around with it, and got 1,863,314,220.843 foot pounds of force asserted against the building, from a 100 ton plane traveling 530mph. I would like to see someone else’s calculations.22,192,128 pounds of force is from wind loading?
I could not find the info to calculate this correctly.I found this while searching around though:from here:
Wired New York Forumand this:from here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.htmlAlso in the video, he claims that the concrete disappeared. That's because there was no masonry used in the construction of the towers other than the fireproofing which is not structual. That's where most of the dust was from, pulverized monokote. Mine doesn't work at all in the air. Plus I think cell antennas are designed to achieve maximum gain horizontally, not vertically. But given the altitude of the plane that hit the pentagon, just how high were they? Maybe they were low enough, I can't remember if that point was discussed. My cell phone works when on the ground in a plane. So shielding is probably not an issue like you experience in an elevator.

Boy I feel stupid now, I actually got a bad website with the wrong info. I know the difference too, as RC planes are my hobby. B-25 has 2 engines, and a B-17 has 4.

Maybe this guy who produced it is actually a terrorist himself.

I can talk around the world on the same wttage produced by a cell phone. Antenna design and gain are paramount. Direction is everything.Ever see an old TV antenna with a directional motor drive on it?Ever see those microwave antennas that look like horns on top of towers? They only go in one direction, and reject signals from all other directions. SAtelite dishes, arecibo, etc. you get the picture.I am an ameture radio operator, and used to design antennas for fun.Distance is also a factor, but not as much as direction. I love that show, we watch it all the time. I saw that one.

I could be wrong about it. But a few thoughts.There was more than just jet fuel burning, we would have to factor in the tempurature of all things burning at the time.The glass was broken, and the wind was blowing. Sounds like ingredients for a hot fire to me. The smoke from the building was not going straight up, so there was wind involved. Not only that, I am sure there was a draft induced through the elevator shafts by the heat of the fire, further fueling the combustion process. Could have been like a blast furnace in the center.Jet fuel will burn, but not all at once. It is similar to kerosene, which burns slowly.I agree about the black smoke, an indication of an incomplete burn, or just material that make a lot of smoke when it burns. Remember there was carpets, plastics, cubicals, seats from the planes, and all its cargo, etc.We know the temp was above the melting point of aluminum. That's hot enough to weaken the metal columns by 50%. The columns were also leaning from damage, that weakens there effective strength even further. I think the floors were designed to hold more than ten times their weight, but did not have a chance once weakened that far. I think I read somewhere that free fall (not that your implying free fall) speed for that material is 185 mph, and the towers fell at 125mph. Perfectly in tune with the amount of resistance encounter by the falling material.100ft, and 125mph=10 seconds?
185mph would have been 8 seconds. Me too, but I can understand if showing that video would in someway breach security of the pentagon, or compromise some knowledge.It would no doubt become a training video for terrorists. That, and at that moment in time, we were at war, and under attack. There must be some limit on the information given for security purposes. I agree.

Yes, wouldn't it just be easier to say the terrorist hit us with a missile, if it was a missile?

The antennas on the phones themselves are omni directional, because the user does not know which direction the tower is in.But if you look on the towers, you'll see long, almost flat plates that are very directional. There will be several pointing in different directions. These are high gain directional antennas.Then there is amplifiers on the receive end, and on the transmit end. The effceincy of the design can bring your cell coverage up by several factors. Otherwise if 2 cell phones tried to talk to each other, the range would be very limited. That is an image of a radiation pattern emitted by a cell phone type antenna. From this web-page:
Redirecting to https://privateline.comYou see very little goes up or down. It relies on reflection for that, which is losing gain.Directional antenna - Wikipedia