Confessions of khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Oklahoma City, PanAm 800 and American 587

[Red_Sunset]

Red:

My understanding was that the twin towers were constructed of an exoskeleton...meaning, the main supports were on the outside of the building and the floors were connected to the outside framework.  One of the after action reports showed that the building contractor used inferior bolts (which were cheaper) to attach the floor beams to the framework.  The heat weakened these bolts and, once the upper floors collapsed, the pancake was the result.  I am not a building engineer so I can not speak to how true this is but, if true, it makes sense.
............................
............................
Bill 

Bill, Mark,
I do realize that our discussions are based on informations from a distance and that the real facts to a large extent will remain elusive.  Our conclusions will remain just a theory, either towards or away from the official version which is critiqued here.
The dilemma in my mind is the contradiction between what I saw in video and pictures as an event flow, versus what was claimed. Like an analysis you do on the many OU proposals here and Youtube video's seen.  The question "does it make sense?, is it possible ?, when we apply common sense & the physics laws we know as reference.

So looking at the issue using only "pure physics" (no other adulterations)
We have a building with 2 skeletons, 
1..  A massive core column skeleton
2..  An external column skeleton
These are tied to each other by the floor beams. 

Scenario 1,
The floor attachments weaken and cascade downwards pushing the external beams outward. 
For the floor to fall it needs to break away from the internal and external skeleton columns, this could happen in various sequence orders. As seen on video footage, the floor breakaway happened fairly uniform in the horizontal plane in its individual time frame.  That would imply in general,  a break away shear on the attachment bolts.  The shear force is a vertical force.
The center core was the main spine of the building and he strongest frame work in the building.  The general horizontal loading on the central column imposed by the floor beam breakaway would have been near symmetrical, all round.
  * Wouldn't you expect to see a major portion of this core still standing after the collapse ? with a near symmetrical shear ?

Scenario 2,
If we assume that things happened unevenly, a lopsided loading was imposed by the breakaway floors that could have resulted in the destruction of the core skeleton. With the forces more in one direction, a pull and less shear,  the total tower would have not fallen so nicely on its own footprint.  I would guess that the fall time in this second scenario would have been longer than the first one due to the force action & re-action times.

Conclusion
1.. A symmetrical vertical fall is the fastest but would leave the core standing with a small debris foot print.
2.. A asymmetrical vertical fall is the slowest, with no core standing but would have a large(r) foot print

We know (as seen with our own eyes, not someones written report)
1..  The fall speed was fast (free fall, it couldn't go faster << )
2..  No core remains standing
3..  Small debris footprint.

Comments
* The core column is effectively a pylon, how do you make a pylon of that height fall on its own foot print?
* How do you make something fall at free fall speed ?.
* What chances to you have for a weakened building with fairly large foot print, due to random fire & random intensity, to fall uniform and evenly instead of random/partial, WTC7 ?

You may provide a rebuttal, (only physics)

The power that we have is still at the polls.  We have an election next year.  What if a large number of people voted against the sure bet of Bush/Clinton in the primaries?

How can you vote against if you have only 2 parties/candidates ?  with full control of media and unlimited funds ?
How was Bush Jnr re-elected for his second term ?

Red

[CANGAS]

Hey, come on, lighten up a bit will you?

I have no idea if you are a real pilot or not but if you are...you know nothing about ground effect, at least as it was taught to me in flight school and, what I learned proved to be correct while flying.

Back in 1947 Chuck Yeager made some high speed passes after taking the X-1 off from the ground instead of being dropped by the B-29.  He was going over 1,000 mph about 10 feet off of the deck so...according to you he could not have done that yet...he did do it.

I have no idea what happened at the Pentagon that day...I do find it curious that it was not covered as much as the other 911 sites but...blaming the impossibility of the scenario claimed based upon ground effect is not going to hold up.

Bill

There is a core group of those who are completely willing to "bluff" when they have gone beyond their narrow field of expertise.

Prove to me that you are not "bluffing".

The X-1 was designed prior to any real knowledge of supersonic aerodynamics. It violates virtually every rule of design that was learned by, ironically, study of its own supersonic aerodynamic failures.

Surprisingly,  it was never flown at 1,000 MPH in the thin air of 40,000 feet , was it?

There are today, few few very high performance aircraft that can make the Mach on the deck. One famous example is the MIG 25 Foxbat. It was pimped as the fastest operational fighter but it could not make the Mach on the deck. Arabs crash landed them in the desert instead of dog fighting Eagles and Phantoms that CAN make the Mach on the deck.

I suspect that you really didn't really mean it when you said that the X-1 went 1,000 MPH on the deck. But, if you were not hallucinating, and, did really mean it, you seriously need to produce documentation for such an astounding claim.

Or else tell me what brand of whisky you drink. My brand is not strong enough. My brand is not powerful enough to enable me to believe that an X-1 could take off on its own power and do a 1'000 MPH fly by.

You are making it up and dissing me by expecting that I am dumb enough to believe any kind of baloney that you would believe if one of your buds told it to you.



CANGAS 173

[CANGAS]

Bill, Mark,
I do realize that our discussions are based on informations from a distance and that the real facts to a large extent will remain elusive.  Our conclusions will remain just a theory, either towards or away from the official version which is critiqued here.
The dilemma in my mind is the contradiction between what I saw in video and pictures as an event flow, versus what was claimed. Like an analysis you do on the many OU proposals here and Youtube video's seen.  The question "does it make sense?, is it possible ?, when we apply common sense & the physics laws we know as reference.

So looking at the issue using only "pure physics" (no other adulterations)
We have a building with 2 skeletons, 
1..  A massive core column skeleton
2..  An external column skeleton
These are tied to each other by the floor beams. 

Scenario 1,
The floor attachments weaken and cascade downwards pushing the external beams outward. 
For the floor to fall it needs to break away from the internal and external skeleton columns, this could happen in various sequence orders. As seen on video footage, the floor breakaway happened fairly uniform in the horizontal plane in its individual time frame.  That would imply in general,  a break away shear on the attachment bolts.  The shear force is a vertical force.
The center core was the main spine of the building and he strongest frame work in the building.  The general horizontal loading on the central column imposed by the floor beam breakaway would have been near symmetrical, all round.
  * Wouldn't you expect to see a major portion of this core still standing after the collapse ? with a near symmetrical shear ?

Scenario 2,
If we assume that things happened unevenly, a lopsided loading was imposed by the breakaway floors that could have resulted in the destruction of the core skeleton. With the forces more in one direction, a pull and less shear,  the total tower would have not fallen so nicely on its own footprint.  I would guess that the fall time in this second scenario would have been longer than the first one due to the force action & re-action times.

Conclusion
1.. A symmetrical vertical fall is the fastest but would leave the core standing with a small debris foot print.
2.. A asymmetrical vertical fall is the slowest, with no core standing but would have a large(r) foot print

We know (as seen with our own eyes, not someones written report)
1..  The fall speed was fast (free fall, it couldn't go faster << )
2..  No core remains standing
3..  Small debris footprint.

Comments
* The core column is effectively a pylon, how do you make a pylon of that height fall on its own foot print?
* How do you make something fall at free fall speed ?.
* What chances to you have for a weakened building with fairly large foot print, due to random fire & random intensity, to fall uniform and evenly instead of random/partial, WTC7 ?

You may provide a rebuttal, (only physics)
How can you vote against if you have only 2 parties/candidates ?  with full control of media and unlimited funds ?
How was Bush Jnr re-elected for his second term ?

Red

There  are many readers, here and elsewhere, who are grossly ignorant of structural engineering design principles, and so do not understand how intrinsically strong the exoskeleton of the twin towers was. The design of the twin towers was magnificently strong, and, in actual practice , highly over-designed.

Bad bolts? Rolling on the floor and busting a gut laughing!!!!


CANGAS 174

[Hoppy]

When detonating a shaped charge:  Pay attention to which way you point it.

I think you know Mark. 

[Groundloop]

Hey, come on, lighten up a bit will you?

I have no idea if you are a real pilot or not but if you are...you know nothing about ground effect, at least as it was taught to me in flight school and, what I learned proved to be correct while flying.

Back in 1947 Chuck Yeager made some high speed passes after taking the X-1 off from the ground instead of being dropped by the B-29.  He was going over 1,000 mph about 10 feet off of the deck so...according to you he could not have done that yet...he did do it.

I have no idea what happened at the Pentagon that day...I do find it curious that it was not covered as much as the other 911 sites but...blaming the impossibility of the scenario claimed based upon ground effect is not going to hold up.

Bill

Bill,

There was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

Quote
"On January 5, 1949, Yeager used Aircraft #46-062 to perform the only conventional (runway) launch of the X-1 program,
attaining 23,000 ft (7,000 m) in 90 seconds."
End Quote

This was performed with the X1-1 aircraft. The X1-1 maximum speed was approx. 700 miles per hour (1,100 km/h) at ALTITUDE.
So this aircraft could not fly 1,000 mph as you say at any altitude. Now if Yeager did take off from the ground and climbed
to 23,000 ft in 90 seconds, then the rocket fuel would be used up. So on this flight he did NOT do any high speed low
altitude passes. And, there was only ONE ground take off in the X1 program.

GL.