New(?) 911 bad science

[SpitfireIX]

Your answers to my questions are good and rapidly disabusing me of the conspiracy theory!

I see that you posted this while I was preparing my previous post. I am gratified that you have finally chosen to respond to some of the comments made, and have not dismissed them out of hand. I do recommend that you go back and read some of the older September 11 threads, though, as most of the standard conspiracist claims have been debunked in them. Also check out the debunking sites listed. Even if you don't agree with everything they say, you could still learn a lot about the arguments in question.

[Chainsaw1]

Thanks guys for the help I found out some interesting stuff not only should there be Iron, sulfur, potassium and manganese, in the sample from the world trade center, there should also be Aluminum, Aluminum Oxide, and Aluminum Sulfide. My Question now is where are the missing Aluminum compounds?
Oh and I found a source for all of the other compounds, I cut open a diesel fuel filter, from my tractor and had the contents tested, by a friend, he found bacteria rich in Iron, Potassium, and Manganese. all important compounds in cell development biology. The fuel was rich in Sulfur.
It looks like the micro Organism that degrade high sulfur diesel could be the source of the deposits that Dr. Jones found.
The only thing that was not found in the fuel filter was any Aluminum compound.
Is it possible that degraded High sulfur diesel deposits where what Dr. Jones found?

[johnp]

Oh and I found a source for all of the other compounds, I cut open a diesel fuel filter, from my tractor and had the contents tested, by a friend, he found bacteria rich in Iron, Potassium, and Manganese. all important compounds in cell development biology. The fuel was rich in Sulfur.
It looks like the micro Organism that degrade high sulfur diesel could be the source of the deposits that Dr. Jones found.
The only thing that was not found in the fuel filter was any Aluminum compound.
Is it possible that degraded High sulfur diesel deposits where what Dr. Jones found?

If this was found only at WTC 7 diesel is the explaination but what about WTC 1 and 2?

[johnp]

I dont know if this was discuted before
Fair quote use
"FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled
...
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...rgy/index.html

[PhantomWolf]

I dont know if this was discuted before

Yeah it has. It's most likely caused by something called Eutectic Mixing. Certain elements, mostly sulphur, when it reacts with steel causes it to melt at dramatically lower temperature. We know that sulphur was in the fires, the answer that isn't known is where the sulphur came from. This isn't because of a lack of candidates, but rather a plethora of them. Introduced in smelting, coated it from acid rain, coated it from air polution, from the Jet fuel and other fuelk stores in the towers, such as heating oil. That it came from burning plastics such as computers, telephones and wiring insulation or other organic materials, including paper and even human remains. Finally, under fire condition, the Gypsum in drywall degrades releasing Sulphur Dioxide, a gas that will vicously attack iron and cause Eruretic Mixing. All of these are possible methods of producing the mixing and causing the pitting. In a way it is some of the most worrying results of the fire, since because no one actually knows which of the possiblities actually caused it, they don't know how it might effect other structures. For example, if it's from jet fuel or diesels, not so much of a worry as most people don't have these in their skyscrapers. However, if it's from the drywall, then that could mean a major crisis for designing new buildings and even looking into redesigning currently standing buildings, as in a fire, their supports could be serious compromised by this reaction.

Interestingly as a side note to this, it is quite possible that the material that was lost by these pieces of steel are the cause of the reported "pools of metal" and would explain why some of the located melted slag recovered has a high sulphur content, something that is entirely consistant with the Eutectic Mixing shown by the columns.

[Chainsaw1]

If this was found only at WTC 7 diesel is the explaination but what about WTC 1 and 2?

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

Notice the lack of Aluminum compounds in the samples?
Also those are common organic compounds does not mean a thing unless the samples contain a remnant fuel source they could have come for the reactions of the metals ad sulfur compounds with potted plants in the building.
Also I have heard that the samples were obtained from Building 7, from someone who was at Joneses Last lecture.
Plus how many diesels go by the world trade center a day, every all Oil based Diesels give off SO2, which turns to Sulfuric Acid in the presence of Water.
The Kerosene even contained Sulfur, it is common, and any organic compound could form the deposits.
The degraded metal though was only found in building 7.
Also let us not forget that Thermite, and even Thermate like compounds can occur naturally!
All it takes is the right compounds under the right conditions.

[phunk]

Let's also not forget that the rubble pile burned for many weeks after the collapse. Those eutectic reactions did not necessarily happen before the collapse.

[PhantomWolf]

Let's also not forget that the rubble pile burned for many weeks after the collapse. Those eutectic reactions did not necessarily happen before the collapse.

This is true, while conditions in the building prior to the collapse are very suitable (in fact the more accurate the CT's "oxygen staved dying fires" the better the conditions of reaction) for the degredation of the Drywall Gypsum, the true oxygen staved condition of the rubble pile was perfect for it to carry on, and then we have trapped SO₂ gas witrh bare steel columns.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Some of our customers run hundreds of millions of cells. The current record is somewhere on the order of 10^17 cells, but (alas) that's someone else's machine.

One of my customers runs combined fluid and structural dynamics models using their own proprietary codes (as opposed to LS-DYNA or Fluent codes). They typically do tens of millions of fluid cells and millions of structural elements. All I need to do now is ship CATIA on that equipment and I'll have Aerospace In A Can(TM).

Now THAT's code optimization, no wonder is propietary

[Chainsaw1]

Oh I am laughing so hard I can not stand it!
Dr. Jones's latest findings.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...lars+symposium

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/M...un24_Jones.pdf

Some one please tell me this is a Joke, it is to funny to be real!

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...es030356l.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese

PS floride is used in steel making too!

[Gillianren]

Okay, I couldn't get through that. Can someone tell me what the solar cooker had to do with anything?

[Yodaluver28]

Oh I am laughing so hard I can not stand it!
Dr. Jones's latest findings.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...lars+symposium

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/M...un24_Jones.pdf

Some one please tell me this is a Joke, it is to funny to be real!

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...es030356l.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese

PS floride is used in steel making too!

Wow. Just freakin' wow. Are we still on planet Earth?

[Chainsaw1]

He found that plastics burns carpets and computers, and compounds used in the manufacture of the Steel, were still present in the Steel.

[SpitfireIX]

Okay, I couldn't get through that. Can someone tell me what the solar cooker had to do with anything?

I had to go back to a previous slide to figure that one out--it's a response to a Frequently Asked Question about what his other interests are.

[PhantomWolf]

I thought he was trying to prove he was the wonderful humanitarin....

[JFM]

Oh I am laughing so hard I can not stand it!
Dr. Jones's latest findings.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...lars+symposium

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/M...un24_Jones.pdf

Some one please tell me this is a Joke, it is to funny to be real!

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...es030356l.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese

PS floride is used in steel making too!

Does Alex think if he talks real loud, he's credible...?

[Chainsaw1]

Hi I just have to ask this, I have built a pan on a motorized rocker table, and I put molten Aluminum in it, I set off a thermite charge 30 seconds and initiate a boiling aluminum reaction in the pan, the motion keeps the reaction Oxidized it burns for up to 4 minutes, Until it destroys the pan it is in.
Do the physical laws of Dr. Jones's Physics, not apply to Kentucky, he says this is Impossible?

[SpitfireIX]

I thought he was trying to prove he was the wonderful humanitarin....

I'm sure that's at least part of the intention.

[Gillianren]

Does Alex think if he talks real loud, he's credible...?

So many people do. I can only assume it's what's responsible for all those people's stuck Caps Lock keys.

[JFM]

So many people do. I can only assume it's what's responsible for all those people's stuck Caps Lock keys.

Ah Ha!

The CAPS conspiracy, the root of ALL evil.

[Nonkers]

Is not handling a 757 different from handling a Cessna 310? The speed and the kinetic energy carried by each aircraft is not the same and thus the “feel” of the required control inputs to maneuver the aircraft are not the same.

The flight control systems, one purely mechanical and one hydro-mechanical, do not offer very much tactile transference from one aircraft to the other.

The flight control response time and tactile sensations are only part of what makes one aircraft “feel” and “behave” different than another aircraft. There is no easy comparison between the type of aircraft that this low-time, poorly skilled pilot flew in his training, and the type of aircraft that was said to have struck the Pentagon on 911.

Anyone that has over flown jets will tell you that is not merely rolling the wings and raising or lifting the nose to get the aircraft doing what you want it to do.

The biggest difference between turbines and props, is in managing energy states and the speed at which the aircraft responds for the same given maneuver in a prop job. Managing energy states of turbine class aircraft as heavy as the Boeing 757 within the altitude range that this pilot was supposed to have flown and the speeds at which he was supposed to have managed, is not something that a low time, poorly skilled pilot with only a few hours in a “sim” would likely have the ability or even the situational awareness to do – especially under the enormous stress and emotional turmoil that had to be processing through his body and mind at the time, to have flown what was basically a World War II style low altitude Bombing Run on the Pentagon and strike the building between 20 to 40 feet above the deck?

Even a WW2 ultra agile Zero kamikaze at a paltry 200 mph would have most likely slammed his aircraft into the ground long before placing the nose of it directly on the horizon at 20 to 40 feet AGL just before impact.

[Chainsaw1]

So you are saying he got help from ground effect, and got lucky?

[stutefish]

Nonkers, you're assuming that the trajectory flown was identical to the trajectory desired.

From the evidence, it makes just as much sense to assume that the pilot was trying to fly a different trajectory entirely, botched it horribly, and got lucky with the ground effect.

If what you say about the difficulty in flying these planes properly is true, then it makes even more sense to assume that the trajectory flown was not the trajectory desired, and that what we witnessed was an accidental strike, rather than the strike the pilot intended.

It seems to me that since the available evidence leaves us no choice but to make assumptions, we're probably better off assuming the most likely and plausible scenario, rather than the most unlikely and implausible scenario.

For me, this is the scenario wherein a hijacker with some (allegedly minimal) amount of training managed, one way or another, to crash an airliner into the Pentagon.

This scenario explains the eyewitness accounts, the damage pattern, the debris found at the site, the missing airliner and its passengers, etc.

This scenario also makes no attempt to prove the unprovable: the pilot's state of mind and intent during the crash maneuvers. We can make conjectures, well-educated guesses, but we simply will never know what the pilot was feeling and thinking, and what his actual intentions were.

Your scenario demands that the pilot have exactly certain thoughts and feelings and skills, and no others. Your scenario must then build a complex and unlikely conspiracy on top of this assumption--an assumption for which we have no evidence, and never will have any evidence.

This seems like a very weak hook upon which to hang a theory that discounts all the eyewitness accounts, all the physical evidence, and all the circumstantial evidence that supports the official scenario.

In order for your explanation to work, you must prove that the pilot could not have been incompetent or lucky. All of the evidence says that he could have been either, or both. Together with the evidence we do have, that makes for a much simpler and more plausible explanation than the one you're proposing.

Edited to add a missing clause.

[fezzic]

I think the point being missed here is that IF the planning for the attack on the Pentagon included the suicide airliner being flown in the manner it was then Nonkers would have a good point about the whether the pilot had the skill to carry out the observed [planned] maneuver. [But that is not quite what I think Nonkers is aiming at ]

OTOH, IF the attack on the Pentagon was simply to "hit the infidel's command post" then whether the pilot had the skill to carry out an intricate maneuver becomes irrelevant since by luck he did manage to carry out the maneuver and accomplish his mission. That the path he flew seems intricate and difficult, requiring more skill that he might have had, does not change the fact that he got lucky as he could have easily piled into the ground short, to the side, or beyond his intended target in any case missing it to a greater or lesser degree.

I personally don't think that the terrorists' plans went much beyond hitting the targets. Certainly, they may have had some thoughts about exactly where they'd like to hit the targets, but most likely they would settle for just hitting the targets. Missing would be... an embarassment.

[Nonkers]

In the generally accepted scenario this then must've been an extremely sophisticated operation from the word go. This was not executed by a bunch of idiots: it took very good planning, almost near perfect timing, organization, management, supreme communications capability, infinite patience, extreme cunning, ruthlesness, tactical and strategic savvy, subterfuge, technical skills, evily fanatical dauntless "courage" and an all-consuming “desire” to see it through -this was no “flying circus”!

Can you just remind me what exactly is the direct physical evidence that it was a Boeing 757 of any variant that struck the Pentagon on 911?

[JayUtah]

Anyone that has over flown jets will tell you...

Have you ever flown a jet? Have you ever flown any kind of actual, physical airplane?

...is not something that a low time, poorly skilled pilot with only a few hours in a “sim” would likely have the ability...

How do you know he did what he intended to do and whether what happened was an accurate execution of his intent?

...would have most likely slammed his aircraft into the ground...

Ever hear of the "ground effect"? Ever flown an airplane in its grip?

[JayUtah]

Can you just remind me what exactly is the direct physical evidence that it was a Boeing 757 of any variant that struck the Pentagon on 911?

The resulting pieces of the Boeing 757.

[Swift]

<snip>
I personally don't think that the terrorists' plans went much beyond hitting the targets. Certainly, they may have had some thoughts about exactly where they'd like to hit the targets, but most likely they would settle for just hitting the targets. Missing would be... an embarassment.

I think that they actually would not have been embarassed with a miss. If they had splattered the plane all over the lawn of the Pentagon, or a near-by road, they would have still killed everyone on the plane and shown the US that they could be struck. The "terror" generated in the US and in the world would not have been significantly different. Same goes with the WTC, if they had only hit one of the towers, for example.

The goal was to show the US that al Qaeda could hit them at home, and create as much disruption to society as they could. It was not about a body count.

All IMHO.

[Gillianren]

Can you just remind me what exactly is the direct physical evidence that it was a Boeing 757 of any variant that struck the Pentagon on 911?

The resulting pieces of the Boeing 757.

That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. (Exactly what I was going to say was, "Bits of Boeing 757?")

[Larry Jacks]

Can you just remind me what exactly is the direct physical evidence that it was a Boeing 757 of any variant that struck the Pentagon on 911?

You mean, besides the airliner debris found at the impact site that came from a 757? Is that not sufficient physical evidence?

CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

More airliner debris information is available here.

As to your point about the piloting skill needed to hit the Pentagon, it's a big freaking building as you can see by the size of the cars in the parking lot. I know because I've been there.

The structure is supported by 41,492 concrete piles. There are five floors, plus mezzanines and basements. The building itself is 77 feet, 3.5 inches high. Each outside wall is 921 feet long.

More than seven acres of glass went into the 7,754 windows in the Pentagon. There are 16,250 light fixtures, with some 250 bulb replacements made each day. There are 7,000 electric clock outlets, 691 drinking fountains, 131 stairways, 19 escalators, 13 elevators, 672 firehouse cabinets, and 284 rest rooms.

The Pentagon site covers a total of 583 acres, while the building itself sits on 29 acres. The Pentagon's sewage treatment plant and the heating and refrigeration unit each cover one acre. The parking lot is 67 acres and has spaces for 8,770 vehicles.

He might have been aiming the plane just about anywere other than the center courtyard and just happened to hit on one side of the building. He might have done even more damage had he hit a bit higher. He had a 29 acre sized target to aim at. It doesn't exactly take Bob Hoover to hit a target that big. As a pilot, I can tell you that one of the skills everyone has to acquire is judging where the plane is going to end up (it's very useful when landing). He had enough flight training to judge the impact point.