Ok folks you be the judge.This theory is not so whacky is it

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed May 03, 2006 5:02 pm

A video at Spooked's shows the plane hitting one side of the building, travelling through the core, and popping out the other side before exploding. This makes no sense. 1. No video depicts anything travelling through the core, because the core is concealed by the building's superstructure. 2. No "plane" pops out the other side. Shredded plane parts, yes. 3. What fraction of a second were the parts inside the building before reappearing in flames?

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed May 03, 2006 8:00 pm

Well, I have e-mailed to Jim Fetzer with the question on the videos. I am chagrinned to admit that he does not think it is possible that these videos are faked, but couldnot say with 100% certainty. I am posting this in the interest of showing that I have an open mind and am sincerely trying to find out the truth. I just got his reply. Here is what he wrote to me: [--This has become a contentious issue. If you go to our "Resources" page and scroll down, you will find "A Controversial Study" that advances the thesis you are citing. It is followed by studies that, in my opinion, are sufficient to refute it. The plane appears to have been a 767-300 (or similar configuration), a military version of a 767-200, which can serve as a refueling platform for fighter jets. That, at present, is the best I can do. It is extremely unlikely that these films were faked, but of course as students of science, we want to keep our mind slightly ajar in case new evidence should lead us to reevaluate the alternatives. Thanks. I hope this helps. Jim

by **Dreams End** » Wed May 03, 2006 9:05 pm

I tried to paste this whole article but couldn't get the equations and subscripts to work out. I want you guys to read it and tell me a) you know more physics than these guys and b) Why their analysis is incorrect, providing your own equations, assumptions and computer models in their place. Here's their conclusion: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center T. Wierzbicki*, X. Teng Department of Ocean Engineering, Impact & Crashworthiness Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Room 5-218 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, USA Received 20 April 2002 In this paper, we have analyzed the sequential failure of a typical exterior column of the World Trade Center Towers subjected to the impact of the airplane wing traveling at 240m/s. It was found that the fracture process started immediately and continued as plate tearing on the side webs to be completed as tensile/shear fracture on the rear flange. In each stage, the resisting forces arising from plastic deformation and fracture were calculated and the time history of the velocity of the impacting wing section was determined. ARTICLE IN PRESS Fig. 20. Variation of the wing velocity as a function of the cutting time. T. Wierzbicki, X. Teng / International Journal of Impact Engineering ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 23 Page 24 The minimum impact velocity to cause fracture was determined from Eq. (24) to be 155m/s. Should the aircraft be traveling not at a cruising speed but at a much lower take-off or landing speed of 200mph (about 100m/s), then the exterior columns would appear to have deflected the wings without fracture. It is concluded that the process of wing cutting through the exterior columns dissipated only 1.139MJ of energy. This constitutes only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing. The remaining 93.3% of the kinetic energy was then transferred into the interior of the building causing fatal damage to the floors and core structure. The present analysis introduced a substantial correction to the earlier estimate of the energy required to shear the column reported in Ref. [1] but in each case the energy to break the airplane wing through the exterior facade of the Twin Towers is insignificant. The present analysis also suggested that the exterior column would be able to stop the airplane wing or at least prevent a local shear failure if the average flow stress of the material is increased by a factor of two. Thus, had the plane hit the base of the Towers which were made of high strength steel with the yield stress of s y ¼ 700 MPa; the airplane might have been deflected by the exterior walls. All of the above conclusions must be treated as tentative because the actual wing was composed of several much thinner members and not one thick beam. Also the effect of the fluid inside the fuel tanks that are placed within the wing boxes is not considered. The analysis of a multiple impact of two hollow beams of a similar strength will be presented in a separate publication<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=cache:ByNhX2JGc64J:chemix.no-ip.info/gamekeeper/PDF/How%2520the%2520airplane%2520wing%2520cut%2520through%2520the%2520exterior%2520columns%2520of%2520the%2520World%2520Trade%2520Center,.pdf+author:%22Wierzbicki%22+intitle:%22How+the+airplane+wing+cut+through+the+exterior+columns+...%22+">full artcile</a> Feel free not to read it all and look up the various technical terms. But don't DARE say that no one has explained any of this stuff. If you don't WANT to know, that's fine but as I've said, Not knowing does not equal not being true.

by **smithtalk** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:19 pm

velocity, mass and momentum sounds a bit trite but is nonetheless totally accurate Orbiting our world at hypervelocity (10 km/sec), mostly in low-Earth orbits, are a large number of satellites (the real number is classified) and a debris field of space trash which travels at speeds of up to 17,000 miles an hour. 10–100 billion paint chips are now in orbit. Astronaut Edgar Mitchell described how a paint chip nearly took out the Space Shuttle and that it is “nearly too dangerous now” to travel in space. small paint chip plus 17,000miles per hour equals space shuttle destroyed, evidently whatever material hits second material at very high speed equals explosive impact/cutting

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:39 pm

Dreams End and others: Thank you for the information. You appear to have been right and it appears that the thesis advanced by Spooked is not scientific, though it may have some appearances of validity. Well so much for appearances! Planes really can pass seamlessly into buildings. Amazing!

by **StarmanSkye** » Wed May 03, 2006 10:46 pm

DBD: Why are you chagrinned? What does knowing the truth, or at least having a well-informed opinion based on evidence and reason and compelling argument, have to do with how one feels about a given theory? I know I'm not alone on this forum in that I'd be extremely dissapointed with myself if I overlooked any evidence, or an argument or a theory just because it made me feel unpleasant, or because I desperately 'wanted' one particular theory to be true -- especially if it later turned out to have been correct. Anyway -- Maybe you could post the arguments Jim provided that convinced you he made a compelling case that the WTC tower Boeing collisions were genuine -- I'd be interested in seeing what he thought was the most important or most convincing, as opposed to the points I and others have made. Did he raise the same issues, or was it the cumulative weight of criticism that led you to re-examine your position? Sincerely; Starman

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed May 03, 2006 11:02 pm

Starman I went to the website as he advised and read the articles on the "no plane" thesis of which there are several. Most st9-11 members do not agree with Reynolds. A detailed analysis of who was filming (and also the audio clips recorded the very loud sound of a commercial jet)--were convincing enough to rule out the idea of faked videos. If the videos are indeed not frauds--then I have to accept the idea that the plane did actually "melt" into the building or alternatively explode into such tiny parts that they simply were not visible. The latter is probably more likely true. It is interesting that the researchers do not believe the plane to have been flight 175, but some sort of military fueling jet. Anyway, I feel chagrinned because what appeared to be "only common sense" on closer examination was not. The real question is now in my mind whether Spooked is a disinfo agent or just someone trying to figure stuff out. I've been reading his site for over a year and thought he was sincere.

by **OpLan** » Wed May 03, 2006 11:56 pm

There's a fairly brutal dissection of no planes/hologram theories <a href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html" target="top">here</a> and an equally ferocious response by Marcus Icke <a href="http://http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/disinformation/" target="top">here</a>

by **Infernal Optimist** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:08 am

Good grief, Jeff. Like I said, I'm agnostic on this whole issue, but you're a true believer. I personally think it's most likely some flying thing penetrated the building. I find it unusual that on other matters you are willing to entertain the idea that something unusual is going on, but on this particular topic you're stubbornly unwilling to even look at some of the evidence. 1. No video depicts anything travelling through the core, because the core is concealed by the building's superstructure. Look at the diagrams on Spooked's site. If that plane impacted at that point it hit the core. 2. No "plane" pops out the other side. On the video you can clearly see a tube come clear out of the building before exploding in a fireball. You may wish to claim that it richocheted around before coming out but this was something more than "shredded plane parts". 3. What fraction of a second were the parts inside the building before reappearing in flames? Don't know what point you're trying to make here, but a big chunk of the plane was outside the building before erupting in flames.

by **Infernal Optimist** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:20 am

The present analysis also suggested that the exterior column would be able to stop the airplane wing or at least prevent a local shear failure if the average flow stress of the material is increased by a factor of two. So, assuming the airplane was a solid block of metal it works. If the outside columns were twice as strong or the airplane was twice as weak it would have bounced off. So has he published the hollow plane analysis yet?

by **Dreams End** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So has he published the hollow plane analysis yet?<hr></blockquote> I think he's waiting for your critique so he can hone his analysis further.

by **Infernal Optimist** » Thu May 04, 2006 2:56 pm

I think he's waiting for your critique so he can hone his analysis further. Maybe you can put it in your upcoming book, "9/11 - Case Closed", Gerald. Look, 4 years ago Wierzbicka put together this analysis based on the information available at the time. In it he states his simplifying assumptions and proposes somethings which are contradicted by the video evidence (immediate disintegration, noticeable slowing of the plane as it hits the exterior beams and at least one, but probably two concrete floors and their associated steel floor trusses, he doesn't account for the plane striking the core, which is what the FEMA report, published after this report, says happened). He says his analysis shows the wings could have sliced through the beams but if he's off by a factor of 2 it doesn't work. He promises a more detailed analysis and now he'd even have additional information to use in his analysis. So, where is this more detailed analysis (besides in the addendum to 9/11 - Case Closed)?

by **Dreams End** » Thu May 04, 2006 3:20 pm

Well, instead of waiting. Provide your own. Or are you not able to work at that high level in physics? Not an insult as I surely can't. My point is that very sophisticated analysis has been done...and to pretend these little questions even amount to "critiques" is silly. Now, don't expect too many studies "proving" that planes hit the wtc...no one will waste their time. The above study is about using the information to make buildings safer. Period.

by **Infernal Optimist** » Fri May 05, 2006 9:47 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Well, instead of waiting. Provide your own<hr></blockquote> I don't have to. I'm not the one making a claim. I'm skeptical of the claim "large passenger jets hit the WTCs." That means I don't think it's been proven one way or another. It certainly appeared that a passenger jet hit one of the WTCs, but appearance isn't truth. You put forth Wiezbicki's paper as providing substantiation for that claim: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But don't DARE say that no one has explained any of this stuff.<hr></blockquote> You say this provides an explanation as to how it happened. I pointed out some problems with his simplifying assumptions off the top of my head. Really, the paper is an extended back-of-the-envelope calculation working with limited information. He concludes that, kinetic energy-wise, he thinks it's possible within a factor of 2. This is uncomfortably close to not working. Also, there are other things which we should see but don't: crumpling/peeling back of the top and/or bottom of the fuselage (Wierzbicki only concludes that the plane could cut through the beams and trusses, not the concrete floors. He makes the assumption that all the steel is combined into one uniform thickness plate). He promises a more accurate analysis and, 4 years later, we hear nothing about it. Now, it could be that neither he nor his (at that time) grad students is really interested in this anymore. But it's also possible that one of them did a more detailed calculation (possibly using some information unavailable to them at the time they wrote their paper) and it didn't work out anymore and they clammed up about it. So, yes, I dare to say that no one has explained this stuff.

by **robertdreed** » Fri May 05, 2006 2:59 pm

74 posts, and counting

Ok folks you be the judge.This theory is not so whacky is it

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

yes

Re: yes

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: Any explanation of anomolies?

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

Re: received e-mail from Jim Fetzer (scholars for truth)

excelsior!

Who is online