Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
You cannot dismiss speed because it does not fit with your view of the "Facts".
|
These planes aren't built to go this fast at these altitudes. The speed factor obviously shouldn't be dismissed, but the 9/11 Commission version goes against basic physics and Boeing specs on engine performance at sea-level...
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Just because some pilots disagree doesn't mean they are right. Radar and GPS data make it easy to know the speed.
|
It does when they're the only ones pronouncing themselves on the matter, and the remainder of the pilot community keeps their mouths shut because of career-fear.
The problem is that GPS data hasn't been released. The ground radar lost each plane at crucial points in their bizarre trajectories.
And the speeds were never confirmed by the FAA or any agency because they could not corroborate the government story.
It's irrelevant - whether they were travelling at 300mph or 600mph, the damage at this point would be similar, and the buildings were designed to take it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Exactly how many supporting beams have to be wiped out before it would infect the integrity of the building?
|
Based on projections and design, a lot more than 7 to 15% (worst case scenario).
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Oscillation did not destroy the buildings. Projections did not include the melting of steal beams.
|
No, oscillation was built-in to prevent building shattering.
Projections would not include "melting of steal [sic] beams" because airline fuel could not cause that particular occurrence, as has been proven in countless skyscraper fires, including a major WTC fire in 1996, and the fact that the steel is used exactly because normal fires cannot affect the beams. The WTC fires, 2011 and 1996, were considered "normal fires".
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
WTC was built in the 1960's before computer aided design. There was no possible way to simulate a plane crashing into it, let alone render it and the damage due to fire, especially in any great detail. "Projections" at the time, while I'm sure based on the best engineers at the time, were nothing more than good guesses.
|
Steel has been used for thousands of years. The Industrial revolution, which started in the 1700s, eventually introduced steel frame construction for buildings whose main advantage above the obvious solidity and stability was its resistance to fire.
Building built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and into the present day and age have been always built with airliner crashes considered, using science as a way to simulate a plane crash. The same science that informs "computer aided design" - which in no way provides advantages in technical and forensic forecasts.
The damage and resistance "due to fire" was absolutely considered by Underwriters Laboratories before they approved the steel, using science established for centuries and never, until 9/11, contradicted in any way. Computer simulations are much more fallible than science, as the NIST simulations could prove if they weren't kept classified to "protect national security".
Projections at the time were based in science as they have been for at least 200 years and were in no way "good guesses".
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
|
At which floor?
And was it enough to disrupt the molecular structure of every beam on every floor above and below the impacts to completely compromise their integrity? Please...
"D