Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?

love the "proof" that a plane hit the pentagon.

 

What a load of crap. Want proof? Here's one excerpt from your crap:

Who is the Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York?

Here's a hint - there is no Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York. The position doesn't exist!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Here is the FDNY website. There's a link to an org chart at the bottom.

The position doesn't exist.

And there are plenty of AUTHENTIC references online where NBC reporter Pat Dawson expresses his outrage at being quoted in this IMAGINARY story that didn't happen.

Don't be childish. You showed us a fictitious essay with imaginary people. You don't belong with the big boys.

 

Next we'd be arguing that jews conducted the Holocaust.

 

here is some information about the weight of the plane.

the plane that collided with one of the towers was slightly bigger

than the plane that was safe enough for the towers to stand.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

 

There are some interesting points in that article. I will need to do some Engineering work to decide.

 

That's highly commendable Corwin, but by the time we have figured it all out, the global agenda is going to be in full swing.

[video=youtube;ouSHGEhiua4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouSHGEhiua4&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Henry Kissinger tells us when the NWO will start - Another Kiss on the Lips from[..] - http://bit.ly/bhXZCk

 

@Blogmaster, sorry but your video was complete innuendo.

Getting back to the WTC - what I am giving you below is a vastly oversimplified explanation.

Now, buildings are built with a "safety factor", that is, if you calculate that a beam will hold up 2 Tons of weight, with a safety factor of 1.5 you then design the beam to hold up 2 x 1.5 = 3 tons of weight. Most buildings are built with a safety factor of 1.5x. Schools and hospitals are often built with a safety factor of 2x or even 3x, which is why schools and hospitals are rarely built as skyscrapers, and when they are they are thick (large floors)

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. While steel melts at 2750°F, steel loses 50% of it's strength at 1100°F.

Above the point of impact was about ten floors weighing in at approximately 45,000 tons. With the jet fuel burning, and the steel losing more than half it's strength, that 45,000 tons was behaving closer to 100,000 tons.

So, with a safety factor of 1.5x and the steel losing half it's strength, within 30 minutes of impact the steel was already stressed way past design limits.

The World Trade Center was designed to resist an aircraft impact, but that assumes an aircraft in trouble, near the ground, slowing to a 155mph landing speed. It was not designed to resist an aircraft flying near cruising speed. The 100 tons of raring inertia of Flight 11 slammed into the North Tower not at a 155mph prepare-for-landing speed but at an insane 490 mph, carrying almost it's entire 23,980 gallons of fuel.

100 tons x 490mph = approx. 10.6 MILLION TONS-FEET/SECOND of momentum hitting the tower

Add to that the additional weakening force of the fire and the conclusion that the planes along took down the WTC is obvious. Anyone who thinks differently is a terrorist sympathizer pretending not to be one.

That's the equivalent of strapping half a hand grenade to your chest and setting it off. The WTC was not designed for that.

See? That's how it's done. And I never tried to force you to watch a 10 minute YouTube video, nor did I link to a painfully long website and insist that you read the entire thing, nor did I give anyone a homework assignment.

 

Actually there is a position with that name. Current Chief of Safety and Inspectional Services Command is Stephen Raynis. Promoted on Feb4 2010. http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/events/2010/020410a.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_New_York_City_Fire_Department
http://www.publicsafetyevents.com/f...o;jsessionid=dbhNxYTvJyibdgOT9gMqeB__?id=2021


Now don't say that the position was created after 9-11.

 

That is NOT the same as "Chief of Safety of the Fire Department" and you know it.

An authentic attempt at complete accuracy wouldn't leave out a part of the title, and mangle the end. An authentic attempt at reporting accuracy doesn't take an existing fire department title, shorten it, and then add to the end of it's name. No one obsessed with accuracy would do that, would they?

A reporter that is obsessed with accurately documenting events doesn't take the title:
"Chief of Safety and Inspectional Services Command" and rename it to
"Chief of Safety of the Fire Department".

This is NOT an acceptable error.

If I was as conspiracy minded as some of these loons, I could say that the invention of a non-existent title that is similar to but not the same as as real title is a deliberate attempt at concealment, and I could follow that up by asking how many other details did they also deliberately get wrong?

If it's your position that the details of the official account of 911 is flawed, you can't counter that with a story whose details are also flawed. No matter how you look at it, it makes you look clumsy and inept.

See my point?

 

It's that easily done if you're speaking to a few 5th graders and I sure hope that this is not what engineers do.
I suggest you take a little bit of your time out to watch a few videos of real scientists since you actually claim to be one. Richard Gage comes to mind.



[video=google;-6024009379065836160]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6024009379065836160#[/video]

But whatever you do, coming in here with a paragraph full of "simplifications" is an offence not only to the victims of 9/11 but also anyone who has a mind.

 

Um, Blogmaster? To put it politely - you don't know what a 'real scientist" is. Real scientists don't depend on manipulative videos - they write papers.

Look, you've already demonstrated here that you clearly don't understand the math or have the barest grasp of the issues. I expect that you couldn't understand the reasoning I made yesterday on the construction of the WTC, did you? Any comments? Any point-by-point observations? Or do my solid facts contradict your blubbering anti-American fantasy?

And after making it very plain here that I'm looking for math and facts and not videos, you post - a video! Wow, if you sold cars and a customer told you they don't want a red SUV, would you show them a red SUV?

When you demonstrate that you are completely unable to make even the slightest connection with your audience, how can you even remotely believe that you have the skills to understand something so complex as the events that happened on 911? Honestly, Blogmaster, stop embarrassing yourself. You're acting like SUCH a tool.

 

OK, so before I do, let me clarify that this is the part that you base your theory on:

Correct?

 

i'm still not sold that the planes were heavy enough to bring down the entire structures. I'm not a terrorist sympathizer.

 

Position of "Chief of Safety and Inspectional Services Command of FDNY" and
"Chief of Safety of the Fire Department" is same. His title will also be correct if you use "Chief of inspectional Services Command of FDNY" as he is administrating two departments.

Its not an error. Position is in short refereed as Chief of Safety. Here is a link http://www.publicsafetyevents.com/f...o;jsessionid=dbhNxYTvJyibdgOT9gMqeB__?id=2021 , its an expo website (not someone speaking against 9-11) and they mentioned his post as a Chief of Safety instead of long version. You can Google for other references where this position is addressed with its short name. Thats a very lame point you made. There are hundreds of positions in the world which are referred with their short name. To make sure, you can ask any FDNY employee and I'm pretty sure they will refer to his post with short version instead of long.

 

It's all you can expect from Corwin. I'm just waiting for him to re-read and confirm that he will stand by what I have posted above.

 

It's an error. It's an error if you are going for accuracy. It's sloppy. It's sloppy if you are going for accuracy. It's not the official name of his title and it's unprofessional.

Funny, how conspiracy nuts are quick to forgive any and all inaccuracies in reports that side with them, but anything the government does that isn't 100% completely accurate is clear and convincing proof of a coverup!

O.K., then, I challenge you. Show us your math. Go ahead - show us your math!

If you don't think the planes are heavy enough, then go ahead and show us an analysis to counter mine. I'm betting you can't, because if you can't then it's Game Over for you, Eric!

 

Blogmaster and the Terrorist Sympathizers, pimping 9-11 inside job conspiracies. During the Vietnam war, most of the left wingers in the states selling the "US Armed Services killing babies" stories had no idea that much of the rhetoric they were spewing was produced word for word by the Communist party with direct links to the people we were actually at war with. People like John Kerry lied under oath to congress in an effort to demoralize the American people, and it worked. Though they were never charged, I personally consider them traitors to their country.

 

I'm not a engineer so i don't have numbers for you. I'm not going to challenge your numbers but i'm am not convinced from them. Your thought on calling the skeptic a terrorist sympatizer is wrong. I provided a link that says the plane was only slightly bigger that what the buildings could handle.

Almost every report indicates its the fire from the jet fuel that seeped into the middle of the buildings that knocked down the buildings and not about the weight of the plane.

 

so your claiming your fellow engineers made weak buildings?

 

Corwin thinks he's on a game show.