The Key Problem with the Official South Tower Plane Crash Story

[spooked911]

According to official videos, the plane enters the tower without significant slowing or deflection/alteration in its path or anything breaking off. Importantly, I actually don't argue with this. Who can say for sure that a plane going extremely fast can't enter the tower in this way?

The real problem here is that after this seamless entry, the 160 foot long plane never exited the 208 foot wide tower and officially shattered into many small pieces.

By itself, I also have no problem with the idea that the plane disintegrated after hitting the tower.

But you can't have both things going on at once! This is a violation of physics and is solid proof that the story is wrong.

It is like cutting into butter with a knife-- there is no resistance as the knife goes in-- yet once the knife enters, the knife shatters! An object that cuts into some material easily is not going to shatter once inside the same material.

This is obviously nonsense, and this conflict is the strongest, simplest proof that the South tower plane attack was faked.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

3. they didn't model the south tower hit

and their model was bullshit-- not even an accurate representation of the official story.

Also I don't think they'd want to talk to me.

Finally, Notre Dame is in South Bend. Purdue is in West Lafayette. I thought you said you were a hoosier!

[SDuderstadt]

6. I was BORN there, Spooked...

that makes me a Hoosier, even though I was raised in Ohio.

So, tell us how Purdue's model was flawed. Be specific, dude.

[spooked911]

8. a quick critique

of the video shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvPWny_PBc&feature=player_embedded#

1) a real plane would not slip past outer spandrel plates like a ghost, as shown in the video.

2) sheets of aluminum debris from the plane would not slice through thicker steel columns like a knife through butter.

3) the tail of the plane should not wave in the wind like a wet noodle.

4) the wingtips of the plane cut large gashes through the outer wall columns in the video, but the wingtip regions of the wtc1 hole were not cut open in this way.

5) they don't show any explosion on the entry face as was seen in the Naudet video


So there are some real problems with their model.

But again, I want to point out that the hit on the south tower was considerably different in terms of the floor and the thickness of the columns-- plus we have much better videos of the south tower event to see what happened with the "plane" and how it went in.

[William Seger]

2. "But you can't have both things going on at once! "

And why not? If the leading part of the plane and the exterior wall were simultaneously destroyed in the initial collision, then momentum would carry most of the debris into the building. What "violation of physics" are you claiming? Once the exterior wall was breached by the leading parts of the plane, then obviously the rest of the plane would enter the hole unobstructed. But then it would be destroyed by collisions with the floors, core columns, and furniture.

Furthermore, photos and videos show that your premise is inaccurate in the first place: A fair amount of debris did fall away from the collision, outside the building.

If that's the "strongest, simplest proof that the South tower plane attack was faked," then it's time to find a new hobby.

[spooked911]

4. Here's why

If the plane is going to cut into the tower like shown in the video, there can not be significant destruction of the plane as it goes in. If the plane was breaking up as it went in, there would be significant slowing, and there wouldn't be clean cutting of the columns.

Also, if you are claiming only the leading edge of the plane broke up as it entered, then what the hell broke up the other 95% of the plane-- given that the outer wall was way more than 5% of the major resistance the plane had to go through the building.

Also, I am not aware of any plane debris outside the entry hole for the south tower. If you have evidence of this, please provide a link.

[William Seger]

7. You didn't answer the question

What "violation of physics" are you claiming? You just restated the same claim, which is not an answer. The problem is "the plane" is not really a single object; it's a composite object, some parts of which are stronger than others. I can believe that the leading edge of the wings and the nose and the engine cowling were probably destroyed without slicing through those steel columns, because they were thin aluminum and because they didn't have much kinetic energy on their own, because they didn't have much mass. But then some heavier and stronger parts of the plane would hit the columns. The fuel itself in the wing tanks would deliver a lot of strain energy to the columns. As I recall, the Purdue study actually calibrated their model by firing soda cans at steel grates at very high speed. An empty aluminum can probably couldn't be fired fast enough to penetrate a steel grate, but a can full of liquid could, and I'm pretty danged sure that both were destroyed in the process. What physics are you claiming that would prevent that?

As for your question about what destroyed the rest of the plane that wasn't destroyed by the exterior wall, watching the Purdue video may give you a clue: Mainly it was the floors and the core, but there would also have been a lot of furniture. Your "95%/5%" pseudo-math is meaningless. And I'm sure you must know that a lot of plane debris actually did exit out the other side, because we've discussed it before.

As for debris that didn't enter the building, you can see a lot falling away in Carmen Taylor's photo:



And here's a picture of the street where the footbridge crossed Liberty street into the South Tower:



Of course, it's hard to tell building debris from plane debris in those photos, but I see no reason it can't be both, since both were clearly broken into pieces.

[spooked911]

9. Reply/rebuttal

First, in terms of the debris. I have seen close-up pics of that street, and the debris is all cladding, paper and what looks like ceiling tile. There is no significant plane debris, and surely if there was clear plane debris in that street, we would have seen a pic of it by now.

Second, in terms of the physics.

What "violation of physics" are you claiming?

That a solid object cannot change states in the milliseconds of a high speed impact-- it cannot initially cut into material without resistance, and then change so that the impact material offers maximal resistance, leading to disintegration of the object.


The problem is "the plane" is not really a single object; it's a composite object, some parts of which are stronger than others. I can believe that the leading edge of the wings and the nose and the engine cowling were probably destroyed without slicing through those steel columns, because they were thin aluminum and because they didn't have much kinetic energy on their own, because they didn't have much mass. But then some heavier and stronger parts of the plane would hit the columns. The fuel itself in the wing tanks would deliver a lot of strain energy to the columns. As I recall, the Purdue study actually calibrated their model by firing soda cans at steel grates at very high speed. An empty aluminum can probably couldn't be fired fast enough to penetrate a steel grate, but a can full of liquid could, and I'm pretty danged sure that both were destroyed in the process.
I don't dispute this.

What physics are you claiming that would prevent that?

None. The issue is whether the wings and so forth would slide into the tower without significant debris being deflected, without an explosion on contact and with the plane slowing and deforming.

As for your question about what destroyed the rest of the plane that wasn't destroyed by the exterior wall, watching the Purdue video may give you a clue: Mainly it was the floors and the core, but there would also have been a lot of furniture.
Furniture? Really?

Also, the plane would have hit the floor slabs upon impact as well, but clearly got past those.

"Your "95%/5%" pseudo-math is meaningless."

Well, when you say the leading edge got destroyed, how much is that? 10%, 15%?

And you seem to say the heavier parts cut through easily but then got destroyed once inside?

If they didn't cut through easily, more debris should have been deflected and the plane should have slowed.

[William Seger]

10. So your "proof" is just more imaginary physics?

> First, in terms of the debris. I have seen close-up pics of that street, and the debris is all cladding, paper and what looks like ceiling tile. There is no significant plane debris, and surely if there was clear plane debris in that street, we would have seen a pic of it by now.

Sorry, but what you think you see or don't see in a photo is certainly not evidence for the extraordinary claim you are making. I would expect that most plane pieces that didn't continue into the building (because of momentum) would pretty much look like confetti, and the fact that you haven't seen photos of any larger identifiable pieces doesn't even prove that no such photos exist, much less that no such pieces were there. If you are attempting to overturn what the rest of the world accepts as very well documented fact -- that the plane hit the building -- that ain't gonna do it.

>> What "violation of physics" are you claiming?

> That a solid object cannot change states in the milliseconds of a high speed impact-- it cannot initially cut into material without resistance, and then change so that the impact material offers maximal resistance, leading to disintegration of the object.

Say what? Fracturing is not a change of state, and there is no need for any change of state in this case. In this case, all we're talking about is strain energy exceeding the compressive or shear strength of both the impacting and impacted objects, so both fracture. In very high speed collisions, metal can act like a brittle material: It fractures rather than bends because local stresses build up too fast to be redistributed by deforming.

You essentially ignored my point that "the plane" was actually a compound object containing parts with different strengths: e.g. the engine cowling would be weak but the engine would contain many very strong parts; the wing skin would be weak but the wing spar would be strong; the fuel would be heavy so it has a lot of kinetic energy, and even fast-moving liquid can cut steel (e.g. the water torch).

Since the plane was a composite object, there is no mystery that the columns destroyed parts of the plane while other parts of the plane destroyed the columns. But that's not the only thing going on, either: Kinetic energy is what's being converted into strain energy in a collision, so if some parts of the plane fractured before the columns did, but the fractured pieces still had momentum, then the kinetic energy in those pieces didn't just disappear. The fractured pieces can still apply strain energy to the columns when they continue plowing into them. And if the leading edges didn't do the job as they fractured, then there was plenty more kinetic energy where that came from, right behind.

>> What physics are you claiming that would prevent that?

> None. The issue is whether the wings and so forth would slide into the tower without significant debris being deflected, without an explosion on contact and with the plane slowing and deforming.

A) The columns were 14" square on 33" centers, so most of the plane simply went through the windows. B) Fractured pieces could have deflected to either side of the columns but still had enough forward momentum to be carried into the building. C) You don't know how much plane debris was deflected, and D) you don't have any meaningful definition of "significant." E) The simple reason that the plane didn't slow down much is that the maximum force that could be transmitted to the rearward part of the plane to slow it down was exactly the force that it took to destroy the leading part as it punched through the columns, which was not much relative to the total kinetic energy of the plane.

> Furniture? Really?

Yes, there was really furniture.

> Also, the plane would have hit the floor slabs upon impact as well, but clearly got past those.

One of the reasons I asked you to take another look at the Purdue simulation was to watch the fuselage being split lengthwise like a banana as it plowed horizontally through one of the floors.

> Well, when you say the leading edge got destroyed, how much is that? 10%, 15%?

I can't think of any reason why that would be remotely relevant to anything, so I won't waste time trying to estimate it. If you're trying to "fine tune" your 95% / 5% argument, maybe you missed that I don't accept that as being meaningful in any sensible way. If what you're trying to do with those numbers is inherently bogus, then the precise numbers you use are meaningless.

> And you seem to say the heavier parts cut through easily but then got destroyed once inside?

I'm sure you know that a (destroyed) engine and a (destroyed) landing gear made it out the other side. They were "destroyed" in the sense that they were broken and mangled, not vaporized, so I fail to see what point you are trying to make. And of course we have no idea what plane debris inside the building looked like, but it's just bizarre to claim that it couldn't have been "destroyed" if it cut through the exterior columns.

The Purdue simulation is based on real physics, and it was done by real physicists, Spooky. What it shows is similar enough to what we know happened that we can have a good deal of confidence that it is reasonably accurate: Both the plane and the wall were destroyed in the collision. On the other hand, you are trying to prove an extraordinary claim that no plane even hit the building using imaginary, fuzzy-thinking physics and what you think things ought to look like, and things you don't see in a couple of photos. If that's the "strongest, simplest proof that the South tower plane attack was faked," then that's also the strongest, simplest proof that "no-planers" are completely out to lunch if they think they've proved anything whatsoever.

[spooked911]

11. re: water torch

the water is NOT cutting steel, rather burning hydrogen from electrolysis is doing the work

[William Seger]

16. Sorry, wrong video, try this one

Don't know why that one had that title, but there are lots of videos on YouTube showing the water torch, which can cut almost anything with high-pressure water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAH0M9KP6H4

[spooked911]

23. OK, I see what you are talking about

and I have no problem with the idea that given enough energy, any material can cut through even the hardest substance. But in the case of water, it is going to take time and a lot of water-- not to mention that the streams of water are pushing on the steel and getting deflected, not cutting THROUGH the steel at once.

[William Seger]

28. Point is...

... the steel is cut because the fast-moving water delivers more strain energy than the shear strength of the steel. It doesn't matter that it's a liquid delivering the energy. I notice you didn't comment on the fact that the Purdue scientists calibrated their simulation by firing full soda cans through steel grates, but that is how they fine-tuned the parameters in their calculations. It's not a "cartoon"; it's physics.

[spooked911]

35. I couldn't find where they said that

if you have a link, please post.

Thanks.

[spooked911]

50. Still can't find it

Oh Will Seger, Will Seger, where art thou?

[spooked911]

12. "The columns were 14" square on 33" centers"

It's nice to see you throw the 33 in there, but most sources say the columns were on 39 inch centers

[William Seger]

17. Yup, 39", so even more window to pass through (n/t)

[spooked911]

13. re: debris in street

if you are saying the tail of the plane turned completely into confetti and fell to the ground as small unrecognizable pieces, that is simply nonsense

[William Seger]

18. Yes, that appears to be what happened

Show me an example of a plane hitting a building at over 500 mph and that didn't happen.

[spooked911]

24. that's a circular argument

the best we have is the Sandia simulation, where the plane hits the cement wall and breaks up. Unfortunately, they don't show the complete aftermath, so we don't know the extent of the fragmentation-- but we can see large pieces flying off during the collision.

There was a "Mythbusters" where they fired a rocket sled at 500+ mph at a car with a cement wall as a backstop. The rocket sled cut through the car and then hit the wall and fragmented in a wild explosion. The rocket sled was blown into large recognizable pieces.

Finally, plenty of high-speed violent plane crashes have occurred where the tail clearly survives intact.

I would say the burden of proof is on showing that the tail DID fragment into confetti.

[William Seger]

27. It's not any kind of argument. It's an observation

Beyond reasonable doubt, two planes hit the WTC towers. If you want to claim there is reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is on you. If all you've got is claiming that all the documentary evidence (videos and photos) and all the physical evidence (plane debris and plane-shaped holes in both buildings) must be fake, and all the witnesses must be lying, because the plane didn't break up the way you think it "ought" to, then you've got exactly nothing.

[spooked911]

36. but all you are saying is the physics of the crash MUST be right

because of COURSE the plane hit the tower as we saw in the video. That's a self-referential argument.

I am saying the physics is wrong, and all you are doing is trying to make the physics fit the official story. That's a fact.

[William Seger]

39. Reality check:

The purpose of the Purdue was not to convince "no-planers" that a plane really hit the building. That's impossible.

The Purdue study is in very good accord with many dozens of photos and videos, thousands of eyewitnesses, and my own understanding of physics and common sense. On the other hand, we have your imaginary physics, specifically contrived to confirm your paranoid delusions about a fake plane crash. Good luck with that, but it's pretty clear that you have nothing more to add.

[spooked911]

40. You know what would convince me is more evidence of the plane

some more photos of plane wreckage besides the 1% we've seen; some proper analysis of the engine fragment being the right type; some matching of serial numbers. Same for any of the four plane crashes that supposedly occurred on 9/11.

In any case, the Purdue study is still not an analysis of the south tower hit, where we have some decent videos of what supposedly happened to the plane as it hit the tower.

And the Purdue study still shows nonsense like a shred of aluminum fuselage slicing cleanly through a core column. That's bogus physics in my book.

I have plenty to add, really.

It's you who have nothing to add besides the official story.

[spooked911]

14. reply to longer bit about fracturing

Say what? Fracturing is not a change of state, and there is no need for any change of state in this case. In this case, all we're talking about is strain energy exceeding the compressive or shear strength of both the impacting and impacted objects, so both fracture. In very high speed collisions, metal can act like a brittle material: It fractures rather than bends because local stresses build up too fast to be redistributed by deforming.

I don't dispute this.

You essentially ignored my point that "the plane" was actually a compound object containing parts with different strengths: e.g. the engine cowling would be weak but the engine would contain many very strong parts; the wing skin would be weak but the wing spar would be strong; the fuel would be heavy so it has a lot of kinetic energy, and even fast-moving liquid can cut steel (e.g. the water torch).

I already agreed with your basic premise there but the bit about water cutting steel in nonsense.

Since the plane was a composite object, there is no mystery that the columns destroyed parts of the plane while other parts of the plane destroyed the columns. But that's not the only thing going on, either: Kinetic energy is what's being converted into strain energy in a collision, so if some parts of the plane fractured before the columns did, but the fractured pieces still had momentum, then the kinetic energy in those pieces didn't just disappear. The fractured pieces can still apply strain energy to the columns when they continue plowing into them. And if the leading edges didn't do the job as they fractured, then there was plenty more kinetic energy where that came from, right behind.

My point was that if there was significant fracturing of the structure upon entry, you would see slowing and huge amounts of deflected debris-- a point you still haven't addressed.

[William Seger]

19. Yes, I addressed those points. I can cut-n-paste if you can't find them (n/t)

[spooked911]

26. slowing and deflected debris

...so most of the plane simply went through the windows. B) Fractured pieces could have deflected to either side of the columns but still had enough forward momentum to be carried into the building. C) You don't know how much plane debris was deflected, and D) you don't have any meaningful definition of "significant."

It's simply false to say that most of the plane went through the windows, given the large entry hole.

I am saying that if the plane shattered as it knocked in this central hole, huge amounts of debris would have been deflected backwards, which obviously did not occur. Thus, by definition, the plane can't have broken up that much as it entered-- knocked in this central hole. Which even you seem to acknowledge-- right? SO the point about deflected debris is not really relevant for what you are claiming. Unless you are claiming there was a LOT of backwards deflected debris that we can't see in the crash video and no one photographed or videotaped on the street.

E) The simple reason that the plane didn't slow down much is that the maximum force that could be transmitted to the rearward part of the plane to slow it down was exactly the force that it took to destroy the leading part as it punched through the columns, which was not much relative to the total kinetic energy of the plane.

This is exactly the same sort of pseudo-math that you accused me of earlier. You are simply making that equation up because it fits your story.

I still think the issue of what percent of the plane actually shattered on first contact with the outer wall is important. Do you have any idea of this?

My point remains that whether a large amount of the plane shattered upon initial impact or just the leading edge broke up, there is a contradiction.

If little of the plane (say 20% or less) actually shattered on initial impact, then most of the plane should have come out the other side of the tower.

If a great deal of the plane broke up upon impact (>20%), we should have seen slowing and far more debris deflected backwards in the video and lots of recognizable plane debris in the street.

Again, the problem is the plane cutting into the tower without slowing or breaking up. Maybe you need to look at the evidence again:
http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2006/06/i-call-bullshit-frames-from-here-which.html

[William Seger]

31. The Purdue simulation IS the math

That's ALL it is, in fact. The rear of the plane did decelerate, but not much, BECAUSE the front broke into pieces rather than transmit much force to the rear of the plane, and the force necessary to do that was very small relative to the total kinetic energy of the plane. Simply calling the Purdue simulation a "cartoon" falls absurdly far short of what you need to do to refute what it shows. You know damn well you can't really refute that study, but you think you can get away with calling it a "cartoon" by implying that the Purdue scientists are very happy to help the government cover up mass murder because they get government grants. Anyone and everyone who contradicts the ridiculously absurd story you want to tell about fake plane crashes MUST be "in on it," otherwise you would need to confront how absurd your story is. That's basically how you handle ALL the evidence, and that's why hardly anyone is dumb enough to take "no-planers" seriously.

You're looking at a video that can't even resolve the columns and windows of the wall. Why would you expect to see confetti-sized debris in that video? How big would a piece of plane debris need to be resolved in that video? Why would you expect debris that large to bounce back rather than get carried forward into the building, either through those windows between the columns or through the severed columns? Where's YOUR math showing that's what "ought" to have happened, Spooky? Why do you expect imaginary narratives involving things you don't understand to be taken seriously?

[spooked911]

34. There is no data to refute in the Purdue study except that dumb video

that shows impossible things happening.

I didn't say the Purdue people were "in on it". They accepted the official story and fit their model to it. 99.99% of people accept the official plane crash story. That doesn't mean they are right. Just that they were lied to massively.

I *said* confetti debris is illogical. There's no reason to think the plane broke into pieces that small and no evidence for it.

But even your story is illogical-- if the plane broke into confetti debris, of COURSE it would deflect backwards. That is physics, and no one has shown otherwise.

You can have the front edges shatter, and say the bulk of the plane pushed it through, but that still leaves the problem of a huge mass of plane not going through the tower.

Why would you expect debris that large to bounce back rather than get carried forward into the building, either through those windows between the columns or through the severed columns? Why are you talking about windows when there is that huge gaping hole that clearly is big enough for the plane to go through? And what do you mean "debris that large" when you just referred to confetti-sized debris?

[William Seger]

38. And so we're right back to where we started

... you're trying to argue against Purdue's qualified physicists (and my own common sense) with nothing but imaginary physics, and you expect that to also refute a mountain of documentary and physical evidence and thousands of witnesses. And the best you can do to try to make that sound rational is to claim that everyone else just believed the lies? Fail.

What I said about "debris that large" was debris large enough to be resolved by that video, which can't even resolve the windows and columns on 39" centers. It's just a noisy blur that doesn't even the resolve the plane itself very well; why would you expect it to resolve relatively small pieces?

[spooked911]

43. what exactly is imaginary about my physics?

an object that cuts into another object neatly and smoothly doesn't usually-- if ever-- break apart against the same object.

The Purdue simulation is simply cartoon physics-- as presented. We can hardly even evaluate the impact, as they choose the views we see, which are limited. They show the plane cleanly cutting in-- even out to the wingtips!-- but then when we see inside, all of a sudden the plane is coming apart with no sign of the columns that were knocked in.

You talk about the plane breaking up into small pieces to small to be seen in the videos, some that went through windows (?), but then that hardly explains the plane cutting a large precise hole in the side of the tower. If the plane shattered into such small pieces upon impact, it is unlikely-- even impossible-- to have cut that neat hole in the tower.

This is still my key point, the strange physics, that overrides every other concern about evidence.

There are of course PLENTY of people who agree that the physics are impossible-- people who have overcome the brainwashing from the govt and media. But yeah, most people have bought the big lie.

[William Seger]

49. Better question: What exactly is scientific about your imaginary physics?

You just assert things that don't make any sense to me -- and apparently they don't make any sense to physicists, either -- and you've got neither "first principles" nor math to back it up. And then, you've convinced yourself that there's some nefarious reason why not a single physicist anywhere in the world -- including countries that didn't like Bush very much -- has the balls to step up and show that the Purdue simulation is false.

> "This is still my key point, the strange physics, that overrides every other concern about evidence."

But the thought that you might just simply be wrong terrifies you too much to even consider the possibility that planes hitting buildings at 500 MPH might not behave the way YOU expect them to? Sorry, but it seems to me you are stubbornly clinging to this nonsense because it's all you've got.

[spooked911]

51. What exactly doesn't make sense that I assert?

There are people with physics backgrounds who assert the plane crashes are fake (e.g. Anonymous Physicist)-- the problem is you automatically rule them out as being crazy.

Non-anonymous physicists either don't really know about this issue or don't care enough about it to risk their careers by speaking out.

Look, I will admit I am wrong if presented with the appropriate evidence or reasoning. The Purdue study is crap, as far as I am concerned, and even you admit it wasn't designed to convince people that a plane crashed if they don't already think that.

I laid out the problem in the OP. There is no significant deflection of debris during the initial penetration. I assert that if the plane DID break up upon initial penetration, we would be able to see large pieces deflecting backwards. If parts of the plane were reduced to confetti upon initial contact, then logic would say it wouldn't penetrate significantly at all.

There are of course MANY other reasons to think that the plane crash was a ruse-- evidence of video fakery, other problems with the physics of the entry, basic problems with the hijacker pilot story, etc. But the central problem is the entry physics.

[spooked911]

15. as for the rest, I will have to get to that later tonight

but I have already noted my problems with the Purdue cartoon on this thread.

[William Seger]

21. Nobody cares about your "problems with the Purdue cartoon"

... except other "no-planers" who also argue from ignorant incredulity. But you're trying to argue against real physics with nothing but imaginary physics and claiming the real physicists who did that study are accessories to murder. I really don't understand why you can't find something better to do with your time than to pursue such an utterly futile agenda.

[spooked911]

25. While I have lots and lots of things to do, I think this issue is damn important.

A computer model can be rigged pretty easily to get a desired outcome. And it's not like we can see their inputs, nor do I think they have published their work except in a computer animation journal. We can't even see their whole simulation except for what they have put in a 4 minutes video on Youtube.

I would be much more impressed by a real world mock-up of the attack.

Unfortunately, lots and lots of people are accessories to the 9/11 cover-up, and legally it is far from clear that they are technically accessories to murder. I never used that term. Certainly the Purdue people are unknowing participants just trying to justify their grant money and they probably had no intention of ever trying to show anything but the official story.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Jesus, Spooked...

Now you're accusing Purdue of being part of a cover-up?

Could you possibly be more offensive?

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

41. For some reason, you seem to be endlessly offended by me

and I am sure I could be more offensive than simply saying Purdue was part of the cover-up.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Maybe it's the name-calling, dude...

the nonsense you spread doesn't help much, either. Why don't you write a letter to Purdue and Mete Sozen and accuse them directly of treason, dude? Oh, wait...you don't have any evidence of that at all, do you...

Yes, dude...I do find your far-fetched "no-planes" and "mini-nukes" nonsense to be offensive. Offensive to logic and reason, offensive to all the scientists and professionals you slander and particularly offensive to the victims and their families. You've had going on nine years to find a "smoking gun" and, so far, you've got exactly zip. Why should anyone believe your nonsense?

[spooked911]

44. what exactly would writing a letter to them do?

the evidence is clear and there are plenty of smoking guns; clearly you will never admit it though.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

if you had ANY smoking guns, most everyone here would be enbracing your position. As it is, you're shunned by almost all other "truthers" because of your "no-planes" and "mini-nukes" bullshit. You don't have one piece of hard evidence, dude. And, it seems everyone knows it but...you, dude.

[spooked911]

47. Actually, the problem is that most of the serious "truthers" have don't come here anymore,

or have been banned. You know darn well this place has been taken over by the untruthers.

So I hardly find your views on what truthers think convincing.

[spooked911]

48. and you still didn't answer my question

about what the letter would do.

[ryan_cats]

20. Slight quibel

You said a water cutter could cut through steel but the example you gave is one of those HHO (brown's gas) frauds. I think you meant water cutter, like this;

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

[William Seger]

22. Yup, my mistake

Lots of video of the water torch on YouTube (like this one) and I just linked to the first thing that came up in a search for "water torch cuts steel."

[ryan_cats]

30. Unfortunately, I didn't read down thread where someone already noticed

It's just that those HHO, Browns gas frauds piss me off. They take people's life savings and promise they'll never have to pay an energy bill again.
They're as bad as the Dennis Lee and Newman motor scams.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

[LARED]

5. Spooked911

Seriously, the fact that you think this is some sort of proof is only proof that your understanding of the physics involved might fit in thimble.

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. I think he already proved that

with the rabbit cage fiasco.

[defendandprotect]

33. Another great observation --

[Make7]

45. Steven Jones: "..the theory that no planes hit the towers does not stand up to scrutiny.." ( n/t )

http://stj911.org/jones/focus_on_goal.html

[spooked911]

52. Steven Jones: not to be trusted in terms of the ultimate truth of 9/11

e.g. the thermite nonsense

[Make7]

53. Why wouldn't inserting your name and 'mini-nukes' in that post be just as valid? ( n/t )

[spooked911]

54. because mini-nukes fit the evidence

thermite doesn't, and it should be obvious to anyone looking at the evidence carefully

[Make7]

55. They've got a peer-reviewed academic paper with all kinds of sciency stuff in it.

Would it be possible for humans to survive inside a building being destroyed by nuclear weapons?

Would mini-nukes render portable low voltage solid state electronic equipment inoperable if that equipment was within the building as it was being demolished by nuclear weapons?
 

[spooked911]

56. yeah, scientific papers are ALWAYS right

"Would it be possible for humans to survive inside a building being destroyed by nuclear weapons?"

It really depends on the size of the nukes, the size of the building and where the blast is relative to the people. But in general, yes, it is possible. Note, I am proposing micro-nukes.

"Would mini-nukes render portable low voltage solid state electronic equipment inoperable if that equipment was within the building as it was being demolished by nuclear weapons?"

Again, it really depends on the size of the nukes, the size of the building and where the blast is relative to the electronic equipment. But of course, in theory EMP from a nuke would fry electronics in the nearby vicinity.

[Make7]

57. I realize scientific papers aren't as credible as blog entries by an anonymous physicist...

... but at least they are attempting to make it look like there is some basis for their theories.

---

I am confident that we know what size the Twin Towers were - are those not the buildings we are talking about?

Haven't you in the past claimed that much of the steel of the core seemed to have vanished? Isn't the micro-nuke theory supposed to give a possible explanation for what happened to that steel?

How much of the core of those buildings do you think were affected by theoretical micro-nukes based on what was seen during and after the collapses? Were the micro-nukes only near the top to initiate a global collapse? Or were there micro-nukes all the way down to the basement levels? Or were they only in the underground levels to mask the bright light that seems almost certain to accompany a nuclear detonation?

spooked911 wrote:

..in theory EMP from a nuke would fry electronics in the nearby vicinity.

Would it be possible for you to define "nearby vicinity" in more detail? What I would call nearby for a nuclear detonation probably covers a considerably larger area than what you would call nearby. How small is the minimum theoretical yield for a nuclear detonation?
 

[LARED]

58. What you don't realize is

these were micro-nukes. As such all evidence of these little buggers is mirco sized and very hard to find. You need one of these to find the micro radioactive residue