More 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Options

[schwab]

? My cell phone works at cruising altitude.

it may work, but you wont be getting any signal

[Hartmann]

I read an article that reports that the CEO of Qualcomm (supplier/designer/pioneer of CDMA chipsets, system software, network base stations, handsets[i.e. cell phones as we know it]) went on the record and said that it is near impossible to get a cell signal at cruising altitude because the height and speeds involved, and that Qualcomm is still in the process of developing this technology which should be testable in Q4 2006.

Not sure. My Sprint phone worked on a flight from DFW to O'Hare last year (made a call from the bathroom). My buddy has used his Blackberry on a flight before as well. I think it has to do with what type of network you are on as well and how fast your phone is able to switch connections from tower to tower.

I guess I'll need to try it on another flight some time.

Also, both in 2600 and that other 'hacker' magazine there have been articles about using cellphones during flight. It's even being discussed by a lot of the airlines to allow cellphone usage during flights.

[Testm0nkey]

my dad was an AF pilot and he always said how he didnt see how the pentagon could have been flown into by commercial plane and im at the part in the video where it talks about that. im just now watching this and its pretty interesting. im going to send the link to my father and see what he says

[impala454]

on the pentagon thing... one possibility could be that a bomb was planted by the terrorists, and they'd rather go with the plane story as the thought of a terrorist getting into one of our supposedly uber secure govt buildings might scare a lot of people.

and on the titanium thing... i was makin fun of the guy bc he went to the periodic table and quoted the boiling point. that's great except i would doubt any metal on a plane is 100% pure element. ie it's titanium + a whole bunch of other crap (crap that would bring down the melting/boiling point of the metal as a whole).

[impala454]

Not sure. My Sprint phone worked on a flight from DFW to O'Hare last year (made a call from the bathroom). My buddy has used his Blackberry on a flight before as well. I think it has to do with what type of network you are on as well and how fast your phone is able to switch connections from tower to tower.

I guess I'll need to try it on another flight some time.

Also, both in 2600 and that other 'hacker' magazine there have been articles about using cellphones during flight. It's even being discussed by a lot of the airlines to allow cellphone usage during flights.

yeah i've forgotten to turn mine off and got a call before while in flight. i was just quoting the guy in the video (who said it's not possible)

[nickluto]

Not sure. My Sprint phone worked on a flight from DFW to O'Hare last year (made a call from the bathroom). My buddy has used his Blackberry on a flight before as well. I think it has to do with what type of network you are on as well and how fast your phone is able to switch connections from tower to tower.

I guess I'll need to try it on another flight some time.

Also, both in 2600 and that other 'hacker' magazine there have been articles about using cellphones during flight. It's even being discussed by a lot of the airlines to allow cellphone usage during flights.

http://physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

[Hartmann]

http://physics911.net/projectachilles.htm

I've seen that (it's what's mentioned in the video) and doesn't change the fact that I made a phone call. And I've seen other people receive phone calls during flights.

[pysex]

the wtc towers being destroyed by demolition charges is total total bullshit...


it's obvious the fires heated the steel to a point where they became flimsy and then the floors just collapsed one on top of another....there's no way heated flimsy steel can support another 20 floors above...


i still dont' know about the 3rd wtc building which just collapsed in on itself....



the pentagon...sketchy

that had to be one hell of a skilled pilot to fly a plane directly into the center of the wall and not touch the lawn but maybe a few light poles....and where's the testimony of the folks that were driving on the highway when a huge ass jet liner flies over the roofs of their cars....you seriously can't miss something like that

an no one reports being deafened by the sonic boom that would've accompanied that plane's speed....

[impala454]

yeah and once you have 20 floors worth of building falling, nothing is gonna stop it

[nickluto]

the wtc towers being destroyed by demolition charges is total total bullshit...


it's obvious the fires heated the steel to a point where they became flimsy and then the floors just collapsed one on top of another....there's no way heated flimsy steel can support another 20 floors above...


i still dont' know about the 3rd wtc building which just collapsed in on itself....



the pentagon...sketchy

that had to be one hell of a skilled pilot to fly a plane directly into the center of the wall and not touch the lawn but maybe a few light poles....and where's the testimony of the folks that were driving on the highway when a huge ass jet liner flies over the roofs of their cars....you seriously can't miss something like that

an no one reports being deafened by the sonic boom that would've accompanied that plane's speed....

Did you skip the part about the collapse time of 10 seconds is in free fall? as in there is no resistance from the intact floors? ----> the floors were weakened from the top down.

The potential energy held in the towers alone is not sufficient to dissassociate ("pulverize") concrete into 500 micron dust particles.

All the emergency crews / workers in the building reporting multiple secondary blasts from the impact up to the collapse? What about World Trade 7? It wasnt hit by a plane...


the steel was tested for up to 2000F for 8 hours to be certified for construction...so they warped under 1500F of heat in just over an hour? People were seen standing by the damaged floors...chillin....not to mention steel is a superb conductor of heat, so the core construction was basically a giant heatsink, the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed so the fire almost choked out by itself cause there was not enough oxygen to maintain it.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

Did you skip the part about the collapse time of 10 seconds is in free fall? as in there is no resistance from the intact floors?  ----> the floors were weakened from the top down.

The potential energy held in the towers alone is not sufficient to dissassociate ("pulverize") concrete into 500 micron dust particles.

All the emergency crews / workers in the building reporting multiple secondary blasts from the impact up to the collapse? What about World Trade 7? It wasnt hit by a plane...


the steel was tested for up to 2000F for 8 hours to be certified for construction...so they warped under 1500F of heat in just over an hour? People were seen standing by the damaged floors...chillin....not to mention steel is a superb conductor of heat, so the core construction was basically a giant heatsink, the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed so the fire almost choked out by itself cause there was not enough oxygen to maintain it.

It doesn't free fall. The guy does his calculation at like 9 seconds. And 1 second is really all is needed for gravity to smash the top floors onto the bottom ones. The lower floors would not have stopped the falling floors much (if at all.)

and i love how you ONLY use heat as the reason for the building collapsing. I guess you forgot a 100 ton air plane smashed into the building and all the supports.

Not to mention you need to look at how the building is designed to begin with. It has the internal cylinder type support in the very middle and then only the outter wall supports. When the jet demolished the outter structure it put all pressure to the inner cylinder which was also damaged by the plane. GRAVITY and heat can do a LOT of damage that high in the air.

oh and those supposed "demolition blasts" blowing out the windows were just the supports buckling, falling to the floor down, and breaking the window.


Building 7 is the only one that i wonder how it fell.... but it could have been any of numerous variables (like the twins falling on it) that could be the explination.

Still not much of a conspiracy.. just decent drama music

[woody]

i still dont' know about the 3rd wtc building which just collapsed in on itself....

would that be building 7?

didn't it catch fire from 1 & 2 collapse and burned inside for hours before it collapsed. thats what the history channel said

[nickluto]

It doesn't free fall. The guy does his calculation at like 9 seconds. And 1 second is really all is needed for gravity to smash the top floors onto the bottom ones. The lower floors would not have stopped the falling floors much (if at all.)

9.2 seconds is the minimum time for any object to fall from the height of the world trade center towers to the ground in a vacuum (regardless of mass/size), unless Galelieo and Newton were wrong on that day. They desintegrated in 10 seconds....they were not in a vacuum, so ths is to be expected. Therefore, they were in what we call "free fall".

and i love how you ONLY use heat as the reason for the building collapsing. I guess you forgot a 100 ton air plane smashed into the building and all the supports.

Nuh uh. Not all the supports, unless the airplane was 110 stories tall, 250 feet wide and was made out of indestructable material. Oh, pissed off 'cause I tried to prove you wrong based on semantics? Just trying to beat you at your own game, buddy...

but okay, ill go with you, every support on the levels affected by the planes were weakened enough to be structurally compromised by a weak fire (which is an extremely huge stretch). what would you expect to happen? The entire building to start systematically falling down with no resistance until it was a pile of rubble? really? Or would you expect the top floors to collapse on the lower floors, and then have the remaining floors maybe buckle under the pressure ?(again a huge stretch... if the supports could hold the entire building up from x floor to the top, what makes the load of x floors to the top different if the floors are closer together? well, they have an acceleration, but not much of one. Constructing a building with just enough strength to support the above floors never happens, so the even if this happened the supports would have at least provided some resistance and probably caused the floors to collapse in one direction or another, NOT directly down)

Not to mention you need to look at how the building is designed to begin with. It has the internal cylinder type support in the very middle and then only the outter wall supports. When the jet demolished the outter structure it put all pressure to the inner cylinder which was also damaged by the plane.

So the second plane that was struck, which took a blow significantly more off center than the north tower collapsed first, with less damage from the resulting fire...explain your logic here?

GRAVITY and heat can do a LOT of damage that high in the air.

This statement doesnt even make sense. Can you clarify? Any high school physics professor, or even student that had completed such a class would laugh at your for even suggesting this.

oh and those supposed "demolition blasts" blowing out the windows were just the supports buckling, falling to the floor down, and breaking the window.

If you really believe this, that they were random failures in a structure destroyed by fire/being struck with an airplane then why did the towers collapse almost completely into their own footprints, with almost NO collaterall damage? Assuming all of the support structures had reletively the same loads to bear on all sides, wouldnt an "explosion" or failure of a single support somehow force the collapse in one direction or another? The coincindences that you are suggesting about random failures 30 FLOORS below the "demolition wave" is physically impossible and highly improbable.

Building 7 is the only one that i wonder how it fell.... but it could have been any of numerous variables (like the twins falling on it) that could be the explination.

both towers fell almost directly down. pretty neatly, little collateral damage right? So how can both of them fall on WTC7 with the gemoetry in mind? Even if pieces of one tower fell on it, if the supports were compromised at that time, and the building fell as a direct effect, then I might tend to agree with you, but standing just fine until hours later, and then following the same free fall collapse as the other towers (Silverstein referencing the "pulling" of the building on TV)....doesn't add up.

The only way WTC7 would have fell that neatly down into its own footprint would be by controlled demolition. Any random act itself would not produce the same effect is even suggesting so is ridiculous.


Sadly, I wouldnt have to explain any of this to you if you have taken a simple middle or high school level physics class.

[Psykopath]

I applaud you: One of the best NPR posts in a long time. =)

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

9.2 seconds is the minimum time for any object to fall from the height of the world trade center towers to the ground in a vacuum (regardless of mass/size), unless Galelieo and Newton were wrong on that day. They desintegrated in 10 seconds....they were not in a vacuum, so ths is to be expected. Therefore, they were in what we call "free fall".



Nuh uh. Not all the supports, unless the airplane was 110 stories tall, 250 feet wide and was made out of indestructable material. Oh, pissed off 'cause I tried to prove you wrong based on semantics? Just trying to beat you at your own game, buddy...

but okay, ill go with you, every support on the levels affected by the planes were weakened enough to be structurally compromised by a weak fire (which is an extremely huge stretch). what would you expect to happen? The entire building to start systematically falling down with no resistance until it was a pile of rubble? really? Or would you expect the top floors to collapse on the lower floors, and then have the remaining floors maybe buckle under the pressure ?(again a huge stretch... if the supports could hold the entire building up from x floor to the top, what makes the load of x floors to the top different if the floors are closer together? well, they have an acceleration, but not much of one. Constructing a building with just enough strength to support the above floors never happens, so the even if this happened the supports would have at least provided some resistance and probably caused the floors to collapse in one direction or another, NOT directly down)

So the second plane that was struck, which took a blow significantly more off center than the north tower collapsed first, with less damage from the resulting fire...explain your logic here?


This statement doesnt even make sense. Can you clarify?  Any high school physics professor, or even student that had completed such a class would laugh at your for even suggesting this.



If you really believe this, that they were random failures in a structure destroyed by fire/being struck with an airplane  then why did the towers collapse almost completely into their own footprints, with almost NO collaterall damage? Assuming all of the support structures had reletively the same loads to bear on all sides, wouldnt an "explosion" or failure of a single support somehow force the collapse in one direction or another? The coincindences that you are suggesting about random failures 30 FLOORS below the "demolition wave" is physically impossible and highly improbable.



both towers fell almost directly down. pretty neatly, little collateral damage right? So how can both of them fall on WTC7 with the gemoetry in mind? Even if pieces of one tower fell on it, if the supports were compromised at that time, and the building fell as a direct effect, then I might tend to agree with you, but standing just fine until hours later, and then following the same free fall collapse as the other towers (Silverstein referencing the "pulling" of the building on TV)....doesn't add up.

The only way WTC7 would have fell that neatly down into its own footprint would be by controlled demolition. Any random act itself would not produce the same effect is even suggesting so is ridiculous.


Sadly, I wouldnt have to explain any of this to you if you have taken a simple middle or high school level physics class.

sigh....

despite your very noble effort to try and cover up your "lack ofs" with insults, you still didn't prove much of anything.

Its a known fact that the structures were DESIGNED to fall straight down. Thats why the inner support system was a cylinder.

And i disagree with you about the plane you say did less damage being the one that brought down the first tower. It hit at a angle that would have done more damage to one side of the building and also the engines hit lower and higher than the body of the aircraft, thus more damage to other floors.

here is another website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

oops, no conspiracy theories at that one...

Im sure it was made by the government. The whole "showing how the wtc building layouts being different than most buildings" is just jibber jabber from more stupid people like me that

"Any high school physics professor, or even student that had completed such a class would laugh at"

And the example from that website of the beams connecting the inner and outer support system falling down (and hitting the structure below it) is just the same... more stupidity huh?

And i love how you think about, what: 30-40, stories of concrete and medal falling ... 10 feet even, isn't much momentum... heh. And that the lower supports could "easily" handled the extra effort because

"they were built for more than just BARELY holding up the building"

I've seen what ONE floor falling down onto another can do by simply watching the history channel. Hell the one i watched pretty much showed all the floors pancaking down on one another... straight down... and not really "stopping" the falling floors. Granted it was a building going up and the top floor gave up, the same things happening again are plausible...




Anyway, you are gonna try and make me feel stupid when you are the one believing that the government destroyed the twin towers, attacked the pentagon, and then tried to make us believe that a plane crashed in a field randomly (when it would serve no purpose)

Give me a break, get some proof (other than a stupid video with drama music) before you trying to act high and mighty.

oh, and here on that site is "an enginers explination of why the towers fell" (I WOULD COPY AND PASTE IT, BUT ITS MULTIPLE PAGES EXPLAINING WHY IT FELL STRAIGHT DOWN, WHY THE FIRES WERE HOTTER THAN EXPECTED, HOW IT WAS DESIGNED AND HOW IT "FREE FELL"... HAVE FUN):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html



Feel free to tell me how this MIT engineer is a retard like myself