the "no plane" theory

[spectre327]

I understand that metal only needs to be weakened to fail, not obliterated. However, I have to question how jet fuel burning material around it could develop the temperatures necessary to weaken steel that quickly.

Another thing. Physics may answer the collapse of each floor. I don't disagree with that. What I disagree is that simply, note Simply, weakening a floor with heat and allowing gravity to do the work cannot, repeat, CANNOT, allow a structure to fall in line with itself. The chaotic variables present would have forced the building to collapse in line with the first heaviest chunk of mass moving off center, aka, leaning tower of Pisa. At some point the structure would have veered off and toppled over, not plummet Straight down.

 

[actaeon277]

Momentum.

 

[Expat]

Where did it land? Nobody saw it land with the original numbers? Particular at a time when flights were being grounded and identified and followed rather strictly.

So you are thinking alien abduction... I think I like that theory.

 

[jamil]

I can't believe I read the whole thing. Apparently arguing about R=D got boring.

 

[beararms1776]

They look like jet airliners to me.

 

[Bummer]

I saw Bigfoot.

Here's video proof! Bigfoot caught on tape:

Bigfoot Caught on Tape! Amazing Footage! - YouTube

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Goodness gracious, not this again.

 

[jamil]

Here's video proof! Bigfoot caught on tape:

Bigfoot Caught on Tape! Amazing Footage! - YouTube

It truly is amazing footage. I'm quite amazed that this video only has 1400+ views. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I understand that metal only needs to be weakened to fail, not obliterated. However, I have to question how jet fuel burning material around it could develop the temperatures necessary to weaken steel that quickly.

Another thing. Physics may answer the collapse of each floor. I don't disagree with that. What I disagree is that simply, note Simply, weakening a floor with heat and allowing gravity to do the work cannot, repeat, CANNOT, allow a structure to fall in line with itself. The chaotic variables present would have forced the building to collapse in line with the first heaviest chunk of mass moving off center, aka, leaning tower of Pisa. At some point the structure would have veered off and toppled over, not plummet Straight down.

So I take it you're a certified structural engineer? Or an engineer of some kind? If so, please enlighten us. Because you're going against everything I was taught by certified structural engineers with years of experience in the field. AND you're going against actual experiences gained by structural engineers who've researched building collapse causes and effects.

 

[88GT]

Our govt is too inept to pull off something this complex and keep it under wraps.

Well, not without killing a whole lot more people to keep them quiet. But. The Clintons werent' in the WH at the time.

Since when? He responded to one of my posts in the past 24 hours I think.

Say it ain't so.

 

[atvdave]

Come on now................... Let's not forget about contrails?, No man on the moon BS, Pan Am flight 103, Oklahoma City bombing, Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon... the list goes on with the conspiracy theorists.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's our duty to question the media, and our government... But at some point you got to say WTF... get a life..

 

[printcraft]

Or like someones sig line used to say, don't shake his hard

Updated! (again)

 

[88GT]

Since when? He responded to one of my posts in the past 24 hours I think.

Whew! He is still listed as "Shooter." So he is still gone or gone again. Which would be hilarious.

 

[Sainte]

Where did it land? Nobody saw it land with the original numbers? Particular at a time when flights were being grounded and identified and followed rather strictly.

Area 51 you silly goose!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The NIST report I read was hard-copy, but from a quick scan, I think this might be the same report online.

WTC Disaster Study

Yeah, there are disagreements among structural engineers about what happened, but as far as I can see, those disagreements are based on "what if" scenarios, rather than what people saw happening with their own eyes. And, of course, in any specialty, you will have folks who disagree on various aspects of theory and practice. However, since the purpose of the US&R Task Forces was to conduct search and rescue operations in collapsed structures, all of us studied the various causes of structural failures in general, and their usual presentation afterwards. As soon as I saw the first tower start to collapse, I knew what had happened.

 

[Sainte]

I understand that metal only needs to be weakened to fail, not obliterated. However, I have to question how jet fuel burning material around it could develop the temperatures necessary to weaken steel that quickly.

Another thing. Physics may answer the collapse of each floor. I don't disagree with that. What I disagree is that simply, note Simply, weakening a floor with heat and allowing gravity to do the work cannot, repeat, CANNOT, allow a structure to fall in line with itself. The chaotic variables present would have forced the building to collapse in line with the first heaviest chunk of mass moving off center, aka, leaning tower of Pisa. At some point the structure would have veered off and toppled over, not plummet Straight down.

And what about Building 7? Very few pieces of aircraft hit that building. No other buildings fell on it yet, it collapsed exactly within its own footprint from the middle out to each side. There is absolutely NO good reason that building fell. NONE.

 

[lucky4034]

So I take it you're a certified structural engineer? Or an engineer of some kind? If so, please enlighten us. Because you're going against everything I was taught by certified structural engineers with years of experience in the field. AND you're going against actual experiences gained by structural engineers who've researched building collapse causes and effects.

I have to ask... with your broad range of experience... Can you share some other buildings that have collapsed that fit the Pankcake Theory Model? I'd also be interested to see a couple of cases where high rises have collapsed from fire?

Just 1-2 examples of each would be fantastic...

I'm also interested why we are all so quick to discount the hundreds/thousands of eye witness accounts of firemen and workers who seen/felt/heard explosions before the collapse, during the collapse and after the collapse... from inside the building, outside the building and even underneath the bottom floor parking garage?

 

[88GT]

I have to ask... with your broad range of experience... Can you share some other buildings that have collapsed that fit the Pankcake Theory Model?

How many other buildings were constructed the way the the Towers were? I think the construction is a big factor in the collapse.

I'd also be interested to see a couple of cases where high rises have collapsed from fire?

Fire only precipitated the demise of structural integrity. Nothing ever collapses from the fire itself, but from the inability of the material that has been damaged/destroyed by fire to bear the load it was meant to build.

The 10 Worst High-Rise Building Collapses in History

#10 and #7 experienced pancaking.

 

[lucky4034]

Where did it land? Nobody saw it land with the original numbers? Particular at a time when flights were being grounded and identified and followed rather strictly.

1st I'll say that officially it seems that no one in air traffic control or NORAD had a clue of how to handle 9/11 because if the official telling of the story is true, a ton of mishaps occurred to make it possible. In my personal opinion... if you believe the official report, then by default you can not subscribe to a statement like "Particularly at a time when flights were being grounded and identified and followed rather strictly." If that was the case, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Flights were allowed to fly off course for more than an hour without any contact or interception.... Let me repeat that... 4 flights were apparently hijacked, one right after another and flown into high security buildings over a 2hour timespan and none were intercepted or even really tracked.

Now to address your question...

I'm not big on the no-plane theory, but there is evidence that suggests flight 93 in fact landed in Cleveland Airport which was strangely evacuated. A 767 was spotted landing in the evacuated airport and rushed to a NASA hangar.

With that said... I will also point to Operation Northwoods which in the 60's the heads of the CIA drew up and signed off on plans that called for CIA agents to pose as regular passengers and board a plane. Those passengers would then be flown off course, low to the ground and land at a military installation in FL where a drone plane would then take its place and resume its flight path towards Cuba where we would shoot it down and blame it on Castro.

So while I'm not big on the no-plane theory, I won't pretend its beyond the realm of possibilities. 40years prior the heads of the CIA thought they could pull off a 9/11 attack and President Kennedy stopped the plan on his desk.

 

[lucky4034]

How many other buildings were constructed the way the the Towers were? I think the construction is a big factor in the collapse.


Fire only precipitated the demise of structural integrity. Nothing ever collapses from the fire itself, but from the inability of the material that has been damaged/destroyed by fire to bear the load it was meant to build.

The 10 Worst High-Rise Building Collapses in History
f
#10 and #7 experienced pancaking.

You'll note in both of your examples the core steel structures remained intact... and nothing is mentioned about weakened steel. One in fact mentions that the collapse happened during construction because the cement wasn't fully set up and gave way.