[[email protected]]

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
(1.10) for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from the "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.


Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

[1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

[1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

[1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)


which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

[1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)


Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
[1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)


Solving for the initial velocity u_k

[1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)


Which is a recurrence equation with base value

[1.8] u_0=0



The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives


[1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
where
u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0



Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives


[1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0


REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ", http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
_H - the total height of building
_N - the number of floors in building
_J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)


cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]]
where
j = _N - _J
n = _N - j
h = _H/_N
u 0 = 0
u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )


Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77

[Geoff]

wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.


So the planes flying into them was just a coincidence ? OK......

geoff

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Nov 25, 12:58�pm, "geoff" wrote:
wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.

So the planes flying into them was just a coincidence ? � OK......

geoff

He didn't say that. Are you saying that?

[Geoff]

videochas www.locoworks.com wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:58?pm, "geoff" wrote:
wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.

So the planes flying into them was just a coincidence ? ? OK......

geoff

He didn't say that. Are you saying that?

No. I typed the question.


geoff

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Nov 25, 3:57�pm, Manatee Memories
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:44:20 -0800 (PST), thepaulthomas
wrote, by way of
, in
alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent --

On Nov 24, 6:49 pm, wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld...

**** off and take your conspiracy bull**** to an appropriate place.
rec.audio.pro is NOT the place for this crap.

The official story, that nineteen incompetent Saudis flew the planes,
is the conspiracy bull****, don't you see?

[William Sommerwerck]

The official story, that nineteen incompetent Saudis flew
the planes, is the conspiracy bull****, don't you see?

They weren't incompetent. They took courses. And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Nov 25, 5:03�pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
The official story, that nineteen incompetent Saudis flew
the planes, is the conspiracy bull****, don't you see?

They weren't incompetent. They took courses.

The instructor refused to instruct them because they had shown so
little aptitude. None had managed to achieve the level of a private
license in a single-engine prop plane. None had soloed.

And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.

Both commercial pilots and military pilots are on record as disputing
that. There are a lot of unanswered questions here that are being
swept under the rug.

[David Z]

"videochas www.locoworks.com" wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 12:58?pm, "geoff" wrote:
wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.

So the planes flying into them was just a coincidence ? ? OK......

geoff

He didn't say that. Are you saying that?

No, he was just conspiring to say it.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in...

They weren't incompetent.

They were drunken partiers... not religious at all.

They took courses.

They failed courses.

And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.

At nearly 500 MPH... a 240 foot wide target to a 160 ft aircraft is actually VERY small.

[ozbecks]

The anger expressed by some people in this post is the same emotion
that eventually leads to events like the deaths of thousands in events
like 9/11.
Take responsibility for your thoughts and feelings. Righteousness
makes us more dark, not less.

[Arny Krueger]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in
message news:ZCr2j.8923$dh.258@trnddc05
"William Sommerwerck" wrote
in...

They weren't incompetent.

They were drunken partiers... not religious at all.

They took courses.

They failed courses.

And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at
landing. Just about any of the people in this group
could have done it.

At nearly 500 MPH... a 240 foot wide target to a 160 ft
aircraft is actually VERY small.

Agreed. Flying airplanes is nothing like driving a car on pavement. It's
more like driving a car on wet ice in three dimensions where the visual
scale versus actual scale can be terribly deceptive. In the air it isn't bad
because there is lots of room for slop. As soon as you start trying to line
up with fixed objects on the ground, you can use all the help you can get.
Airports usually have lots of ground support like ILS, but you don't get a
lot of ground support for flying into buildings.

[Jon Schild]

The Kat wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:56:07 -0800 (PST), "videochas www.locoworks.com"
wrote:


On Nov 25, 12:58?pm, "geoff" wrote:

wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.

So the planes flying into them was just a coincidence ? ? OK......

geoff

He didn't say that. Are you saying that?


WHAT in the **** does this thread have to do with the Forte product Agent??


About as much as it has to do with the other newsgroups the spam was
sent to.


--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei

[Steve Tew]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.


So the planes flying into them was just a coincidence ? OK......

geoff


The planes were actually NOT flown into the twin towers. They were flown to
secret destinations where all of the crew and passengers were placed into
super secret deep cover covert identity change witness protection programs,
like in the film 'Eraser'.

What the citizens of New York and the movies of the event actually show are
cleverly produced holograms of planes flying into buildings. The secret is
known only to certain illusionists, NASA scientists, Disney Arts engineers,
most junior high school age amature magicians, the entire Bush White House
staff, and Governor Schwarzenegger.

The explosive charges were triggered by a pre-determined sequence of signals
originating with the reading of a children's story book. A very dangerous
children's story book... read by the President himself. The diabolical mind
of GW is unfathomable in it's depth of diabolical conniving and really mean
but super intelligent planning and forethought, even though he is an idiot.

So... a coincidence? Ha! You tell me how steel can soften, when steel has
never softened in fire before in all of recorded history! It had to be a
controled demolition by tons of explosives, placed in thousands of exacting
positions throughout the towers by a crew of demolition experts posing as
delivery boys, janitors, security guards, cops, executives, cooks, HVAC
maintenace guys, electricians, plumbers, investors, account managers, and so
forth. All of these people have been sworn to secrecy, and are really good
secret keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews
run by Cheney.

Sheesh, it's so obvious. I gotta go shine up the old aluminum foil hat now.

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Nov 26, 9:18�pm, "Steve Tew" notme403-at-hotmail.com wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message

...

wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.

So the planes flying into them was just a coincidence ? � OK.......

geoff

The planes were actually NOT flown into the twin towers. �They were flown to
secret destinations where all of the crew and passengers were placed into
super secret deep cover covert identity change witness protection programs,
like in the film 'Eraser'.

What the citizens of New York and the movies of the event actually show are
cleverly produced holograms of planes flying into buildings. �The secret is
known only to certain illusionists, NASA scientists, Disney Arts engineers,
most junior high school age amature magicians, the entire Bush White House
staff, and Governor Schwarzenegger.

The explosive charges were triggered by a pre-determined sequence of signals
originating with the reading of a children's story book. �A very dangerous
children's story book... read by the President himself. �The diabolical mind
of GW is unfathomable in it's depth of diabolical conniving and really mean
but super intelligent planning and forethought, even though he is an idiot..

So... a coincidence? �Ha! �You tell me how steel can soften, when steel has
never softened in fire before in all of recorded history! �It had to be a
controled demolition by tons of explosives, placed in thousands of exacting
positions throughout the towers by a crew of demolition experts posing as
delivery boys, janitors, security guards, cops, executives, cooks, HVAC
maintenace guys, electricians, plumbers, investors, account managers, and so
forth. �All of these people have been sworn to secrecy, and are really good
secret keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews
run by Cheney.

Sheesh, it's so obvious. �I gotta go shine up the old aluminum foil hat now.

The perfect example of a straw man argument. Save it for a logic
class assignment.

[Al Balmer]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:23:48 -0800 (PST), "videochas
www.locoworks.com" wrote:

On Nov 26, 9:18?pm, "Steve Tew" notme403-at-hotmail.com wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message

snip
So... a coincidence? ?Ha! ?You tell me how steel can soften, when steel has
never softened in fire before in all of recorded history! ?It had to be a
controled demolition by tons of explosives, placed in thousands of exacting
positions throughout the towers by a crew of demolition experts posing as
delivery boys, janitors, security guards, cops, executives, cooks, HVAC
maintenace guys, electricians, plumbers, investors, account managers, and so
forth. ?All of these people have been sworn to secrecy, and are really good
secret keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews
run by Cheney.

Sheesh, it's so obvious. ?I gotta go shine up the old aluminum foil hat now.

The perfect example of a straw man argument. Save it for a logic
class assignment.

No, it's an example of sarcasm. Well-deserved sarcasm.

Go away.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Geoff]

Steve Tew wrote:
keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews
run by Cheney.

Is Cheney part of FMR Audio - I thought they were good guys !

geoff

[philicorda[_4_]]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:14:20 +1300, geoff wrote:

Steve Tew wrote:
keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews run
by Cheney.

Is Cheney part of FMR Audio - I thought they were good guys !

Nah. The RNC is prime example of the strict control of free speech.


geoff

[Mark]

On Nov 25, 11:06 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in...

They weren't incompetent.

They were drunken partiers... not religious at all.

They took courses.

They failed courses.

And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.

At nearly 500 MPH... a 240 foot wide target to a 160 ft aircraft is actually VERY small.

actually its easier than hitting a tree with your car..

try it on a flight simulator game..

Mark

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"philicorda" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:14:20 +1300, geoff wrote:

Steve Tew wrote:
keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews run
by Cheney.

Is Cheney part of FMR Audio - I thought they were good guys !

Nah. The RNC is prime example of the strict control of free speech.

IE: Maximum Limiting

[Fletch]

On Nov 27, 2:37 pm, philicorda
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:14:20 +1300, geoff wrote:
Steve Tew wrote:
keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews run
by Cheney.

Is Cheney part of FMR Audio - I thought they were good guys !

Nah. The RNC is prime example of the strict control of free speech.



geoff


Yeah, right... Like the liberal left is allowing any dissent regarding
the so-called "facts" about global warming, just one example of their
need to control speech and issues, too.

The group that preaches tolerance is just about the most intolerant
group I've ever seen when it comes to disagreeing with them.

So much for constructive engagement.

Get a more objective view of the world and you'll see that neither
side of the argument is trustworthy.

--Fletch

[philicorda[_4_]]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:24:29 -0800, Fletch wrote:

snip
Get a more objective view of the world and you'll see that neither side
of the argument is trustworthy.

I was talking about the compressor.
Looks like I need better material, or more emoticons.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mark" wrote in message ...
On Nov 25, 11:06 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in...

They weren't incompetent.

They were drunken partiers... not religious at all.

They took courses.

They failed courses.

And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.

At nearly 500 MPH... a 240 foot wide target to a 160 ft aircraft is actually VERY small.


actually its easier than hitting a tree with your car..

try it on a flight simulator game..


So this is all a 'game' to you, eh?...... figures.
Maximum available logic applied, I suppose.

But, let *me* program the simulator variables for you, and then try it.

Now... if you care to try it in a REAL flight simulator, be my guest.
You will find the results to be quite different.

[videochas www.locoworks.com]

On Nov 27, 8:58�am, Al Balmer wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:23:48 -0800 (PST), "videochas







www.locoworks.com" wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:18?pm, "Steve Tew" notme403-at-hotmail.com wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message

snip
So... a coincidence? ?Ha! ?You tell me how steel can soften, when steel has
never softened in fire before in all of recorded history! ?It had to be a
controled demolition by tons of explosives, placed in thousands of exacting
positions throughout the towers by a crew of demolition experts posing as
delivery boys, janitors, security guards, cops, executives, cooks, HVAC
maintenace guys, electricians, plumbers, investors, account managers, and so
forth. ?All of these people have been sworn to secrecy, and are really good
secret keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews
run by Cheney.

Sheesh, it's so obvious. ?I gotta go shine up the old aluminum foil hat now.

The perfect example of a straw man argument. �Save it for a logic
class assignment.

No, it's an example of sarcasm. Well-deserved sarcasm.

Go away.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HA.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Fletch" wrote in message...

Yeah, right... Like the liberal left is allowing any...

just one example of their need to control...

just about the most intolerant group I've ever seen

So much for constructive engagement.

Get a more objective view



Got a mirror handy ?

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"philicorda" wrote...

Looks like I need better material, or more emoticons.

Less hard knee (jerking) might work.

[William December Starr]

[ Note the muchly truncated "Followup-To" line, please. ]

In article ,
"Steve Tew" notme403-at-hotmail.com said:

Sheesh, it's so obvious. I gotta go shine up the old aluminum
foil hat now.

Now there's a nice catch-phrase: "The future's so bright I gotta
wear aluminum foil."

--
William December Starr

[Mark]

On Nov 27, 6:50 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"Mark" wrote in ...
On Nov 25, 11:06 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in...

They weren't incompetent.

They were drunken partiers... not religious at all.

They took courses.

They failed courses.

And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.

At nearly 500 MPH... a 240 foot wide target to a 160 ft aircraft is actually VERY small.
actually its easier than hitting a tree with your car..

try it on a flight simulator game..

So this is all a 'game' to you, eh?...... figures.
Maximum available logic applied, I suppose.

But, let *me* program the simulator variables for you, and then try it.

Now... if you care to try it in a REAL flight simulator, be my guest.
You will find the results to be quite different.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What happened on 9/11 is no game.

If you want to pay $1000 and for a ride in a real sim I'd be glad to
take it...

Yes, I think anyone with a few hours training could have done
it.......do you disagree with that?

Mark

[Steve Tew]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Steve Tew wrote:
keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews
run by Cheney.

Is Cheney part of FMR Audio - I thought they were good guys !

geoff

Oh, crap! I am sorry about the mixup. I was talking about THE RNC, not an
RNC.
I don't think FMR had anything to do with it... but they could have!

Now, where is that silver polish. It works great on foil.

Steve

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mark" wrote in message ...
On Nov 27, 6:50 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"Mark" wrote in ...
On Nov 25, 11:06 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in...

They weren't incompetent.

They were drunken partiers... not religious at all.

They took courses.

They failed courses.

And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.

At nearly 500 MPH... a 240 foot wide target to a 160 ft aircraft is actually VERY small.

actually its easier than hitting a tree with your car..

try it on a flight simulator game..

So this is all a 'game' to you, eh?...... figures.
Maximum available logic applied, I suppose.

But, let *me* program the simulator variables for you, and then try it.

Now... if you care to try it in a REAL flight simulator, be my guest.
You will find the results to be quite different.


What happened on 9/11 is no game.

Neither is pretending that it can be simulated in a consumer game.

If you want to pay $1000 and for a ride in a real sim I'd be glad to
take it...

;-)

I honestly don't know where to go that the general public is allowed.
There are a number of them near DFW airport at the training centers,
but I've never been in one. The last time I sat in a simulator was in
1972 when I was getting a bunch of different ground crew licenses
in the military. It's only by staying close to military folks that I have
a clue at all about simulators... and my step-father being retired
from the Air Force and commanding a CAP squadron.

Yes, I think anyone with a few hours training could have done
it.......do you disagree with that?

Yes, if your training was in single engine propellor aircraft... and most
certainly yes if you *failed* that training and were never allowed to fly.

I am quite certain that you can comprehend the cockpit and control
surface differences, and the response and reaction time variations
between a 747 and a Cessna 172. (The whole scam about the flight
schools was just a dumb diversion from reality, called DIS-information).

Anyway...

[Mark]

On Nov 28, 2:35 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"Mark" wrote in ...
On Nov 27, 6:50 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"Mark" wrote in ...
On Nov 25, 11:06 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in...
They weren't incompetent.
They were drunken partiers... not religious at all.
They took courses.
They failed courses.
And as it was a suicide
mission, they didn't have to be particularly good at landing. Just about any
of the people in this group could have done it.
At nearly 500 MPH... a 240 foot wide target to a 160 ft aircraft is actually VERY small.
actually its easier than hitting a tree with your car..

try it on a flight simulator game..
So this is all a 'game' to you, eh?...... figures.
Maximum available logic applied, I suppose.

But, let *me* program the simulator variables for you, and then try it.

Now... if you care to try it in a REAL flight simulator, be my guest.
You will find the results to be quite different.
What happened on 9/11 is no game.

Neither is pretending that it can be simulated in a consumer game.

If you want to pay $1000 and for a ride in a real sim I'd be glad to
take it...

;-)

I honestly don't know where to go that the general public is allowed.
There are a number of them near DFW airport at the training centers,
but I've never been in one. The last time I sat in a simulator was in
1972 when I was getting a bunch of different ground crew licenses
in the military. It's only by staying close to military folks that I have
a clue at all about simulators... and my step-father being retired
from the Air Force and commanding a CAP squadron.

Yes, I think anyone with a few hours training could have done
it.......do you disagree with that?

Yes, if your training was in single engine propellor aircraft... and most
certainly yes if you *failed* that training and were never allowed to fly.

I am quite certain that you can comprehend the cockpit and control
surface differences, and the response and reaction time variations
between a 747 and a Cessna 172. (The whole scam about the flight
schools was just a dumb diversion from reality, called DIS-information).

Anyway...-

they didn't have to take off or land or execute any precision
maneuvers...just hit a large target on a crystal clear day...
Yes, anyone with a few hours of training could have done it.
what does your step father think about it?

anyway...what's your point?...who do __you__ think were the "expert
pilots" that flew into the towers?

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

David Morgan \(MAMS\) /Odm wrote:

I honestly don't know where to go that the general public is allowed.
There are a number of them near DFW airport at the training centers,
but I've never been in one. The last time I sat in a simulator was in
1972 when I was getting a bunch of different ground crew licenses
in the military. It's only by staying close to military folks that I have
a clue at all about simulators... and my step-father being retired
from the Air Force and commanding a CAP squadron.

Before 9-11, most of the flight schools with simulation facilities would
sell you a little time if you wanted to see what it was like.

These days they would probably be reluctant to do so if you walked in off
the street. However, most small flying schools will still give you a
one-hour first lesson in a general aviation plane for a small fee, and I
strongly recommend doing that. A Cessna is a whole lot more maneuverable
than a 747, but the basic concepts transfer pretty well.

Yes, I think anyone with a few hours training could have done
it.......do you disagree with that?

Yes, if your training was in single engine propellor aircraft... and most
certainly yes if you *failed* that training and were never allowed to fly.

I am quite certain that you can comprehend the cockpit and control
surface differences, and the response and reaction time variations
between a 747 and a Cessna 172. (The whole scam about the flight
schools was just a dumb diversion from reality, called DIS-information).

I've never flown a 747, but getting the hang of a DC-3 after flying a
light plane wasn't too bad. Certainly it's not half as bad as what
sailors have to go through... the difference between a Hobie Cat and a
tanker is a lot greater than between a Cessna and a 747.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mark" wrote in message...

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm wrote:

"Mark" wrote in messagenews:

I honestly don't know where to go that the general public is allowed.
There are a number of them near DFW airport at the training centers,
but I've never been in one. The last time I sat in a simulator was in
1972 when I was getting a bunch of different ground crew licenses
in the military. It's only by staying close to military folks that I have
a clue at all about simulators... and my step-father being retired
from the Air Force and commanding a CAP squadron.

Yes, I think anyone with a few hours training could have done
it.......do you disagree with that?

Yes, if your training was in single engine propellor aircraft... and most
certainly yes if you *failed* that training and were never allowed to fly.

I am quite certain that you can comprehend the cockpit and control
surface differences, and the response and reaction time variations
between a 747 and a Cessna 172. (The whole scam about the flight
schools was just a dumb diversion from reality, called DIS-information).

Anyway...-

they didn't have to take off or land or execute any precision
maneuvers...just hit a large target on a crystal clear day...

Yes, anyone with a few hours of training could have done it.

Trianing in a 747 perhaps, but after having *failed* Cessna training,
the odds are severely diminished. A 240 ft wide target when compared
to a 160 foot wide aircraft moving at 500 MPH, is smaller than the width
of a typical runway. As you surely note, the second impact was very
nearly a complete miss.

what does your step father think about it?

He thinks terrorists crashed two planes into the WTC towers. He
refuses to discuss the Pentagon and the Shanksville issue.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Black Boxes coverup http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html

Dov Zakheim, Pentagon Comptroller, ran drone plane company.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes;read=53486


anyway...what's your point?...

To illustrate that *your* point is one of simple acceptance and belief,
and may not be based on practicality and real-world application.

who do __you__ think were the "expert
pilots" that flew into the towers?

Who says there were any pilots ?

;-)

[Mark]

On Nov 28, 12:56 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm
wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message...
"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm wrote:
"Mark" wrote in messagenews:
I honestly don't know where to go that the general public is allowed.
There are a number of them near DFW airport at the training centers,
but I've never been in one. The last time I sat in a simulator was in
1972 when I was getting a bunch of different ground crew licenses
in the military. It's only by staying close to military folks that I have
a clue at all about simulators... and my step-father being retired
from the Air Force and commanding a CAP squadron.
Yes, I think anyone with a few hours training could have done
it.......do you disagree with that?
Yes, if your training was in single engine propellor aircraft... and most
certainly yes if you *failed* that training and were never allowed to fly.
I am quite certain that you can comprehend the cockpit and control
surface differences, and the response and reaction time variations
between a 747 and a Cessna 172. (The whole scam about the flight
schools was just a dumb diversion from reality, called DIS-information).

Anyway...-
they didn't have to take off or land or execute any precision
maneuvers...just hit a large target on a crystal clear day...
Yes, anyone with a few hours of training could have done it.

Trianing in a 747 perhaps, but after having *failed* Cessna training,
the odds are severely diminished. A 240 ft wide target when compared
to a 160 foot wide aircraft moving at 500 MPH, is smaller than the width
of a typical runway. As you surely note, the second impact was very
nearly a complete miss.

what does your step father think about it?

He thinks terrorists crashed two planes into the WTC towers. He
refuses to discuss the Pentagon and the Shanksville issue.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Black Boxes coverup http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410B.html

Dov Zakheim, Pentagon Comptroller, ran drone plane company.http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...mes;read=53486

anyway...what's your point?...

To illustrate that *your* point is one of simple acceptance and belief,
and may not be based on practicality and real-world application.

who do __you__ think were the "expert
pilots" that flew into the towers?

Who says there were any pilots ?

;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

whatever
Mark

[Steve Tew]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm wrote in message
news:AZh3j.54511$9h.49729@trnddc07...


Who says there were any pilots ?

;-)


They were not piloted by humans. They were not even actually flown into the
Towers.
It was a hologram... all of it. The Towers had actually been dissassembled
during the months prior using stealth reposession technology and the parts
sold at The Worlds Larges Garage Sale... or one of 'em, probably somewhere
in Texas.

Or... some dedicated and insane Muslim assholes with minimal training flew
the planes into the towers. No, wait! That cannot be it, because then I
cannot blame Bush.

Back to the hologram theory for me.

Hmmmm. Hat shiny. Must get more foil.

Steve

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Mark" wrote in message...

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm wrote:

Who says there were any pilots ?

;-)

whatever

At least you caught the smiley-faces. Cheers,

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?pag...d_minds_on_911

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Artic..._Years_On.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/researc...ccount-of-9-11

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article
,
Fletch wrote:

On Nov 27, 2:37 pm, philicorda
wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:14:20 +1300, geoff wrote:
Steve Tew wrote:
keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews run
by Cheney.

Is Cheney part of FMR Audio - I thought they were good guys !

Nah. The RNC is prime example of the strict control of free speech.



geoff


Yeah, right... Like the liberal left is allowing any dissent regarding
the so-called "facts" about global warming, just one example of their
need to control speech and issues, too.

The group that preaches tolerance is just about the most intolerant
group I've ever seen when it comes to disagreeing with them.

So much for constructive engagement.

Get a more objective view of the world and you'll see that neither
side of the argument is trustworthy.

--Fletch

OK, let's talk. Engage me about global warming (without castigating
Gore, please). I'd love to see some compelling evidence that man has
nothing to do with it. I have seen evidence having to do with global
warming on other planets and how it leads to the theory that it is
caused by sunspots. It's an interesting idea, but I ran it past an
astronomer friend of mine who studied warming on Venus (now there is a
hot place to be!) and he said while it might be a contributing factor,
the evidence to him seems overwhelming that human activity is playing a
bigger role.

I am not interested in dissent, I am interested in hearing other
viewpoints that carry scientific merit.

All the best,
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan

[Scott Dorsey]

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:

I am not interested in dissent, I am interested in hearing other
viewpoints that carry scientific merit.

I support global warming because I love bananas and want to grow them
here in Virginia, and also if the sea level rises 32 feet I will have
valuable waterfront property.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Edwin Hurwitz wrote:

I am not interested in dissent, I am interested in hearing other
viewpoints that carry scientific merit.

I support global warming because I love bananas and want to grow them
here in Virginia, and also if the sea level rises 32 feet I will have
valuable waterfront property.
--scott

Cool! I met this guy who lives way off the grid above 8,000 feet in the
mountains of Colorado and he was very proud of himself for his photo
voltaic system as well as his greenhouse that grew bananas!

Here in Boulder we'd need a much higher sea level change to get the
coast near us, but sometime in our murky past, Nederland was beachfront
property.

Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan

[Bill[_5_]]

It's not very hard at all to find scientists who believe in global
warming who don't personally profit from it.

But for years, I could not find a single scientist who didn't believe in
global warming who was not in the pay of the oil companies. In fact,
it was positively amazing-- it was literally impossible to find an
independent expert who did not support the basic conclusions drawn by Al
Gore. There was a Christian from Florida whom I thought, finally, had
broken the jinx--- he claimed inspiration from the Bible-- but then a
bit of googling revealled the truth: he worked for a foundation funded
by Exxon/Mobil. Didn't he realize how looks, to a rational, objective
observer who is trying to find unbiased opinion?

It's amazing then how the skeptics complain about how dissent is treated
by environmentalists--- as if Exxon is willing to fund scientists who
won't tell them exactly what they want to hear, or as if Bob Roberts
University is about to invite Naom Chomsky over for a lively discussion,
or as if Bill O'Reilly doesn't just shut off the microphone whenever
anyone disagrees with him.



Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
In article
,
Fletch wrote:


On Nov 27, 2:37 pm, philicorda
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:14:20 +1300, geoff wrote:

Steve Tew wrote:

keepers, or they were killed by squads of killer RNC cleanup crews run
by Cheney.

Is Cheney part of FMR Audio - I thought they were good guys !

Nah. The RNC is prime example of the strict control of free speech.




geoff


Yeah, right... Like the liberal left is allowing any dissent regarding
the so-called "facts" about global warming, just one example of their
need to control speech and issues, too.

The group that preaches tolerance is just about the most intolerant
group I've ever seen when it comes to disagreeing with them.

So much for constructive engagement.

Get a more objective view of the world and you'll see that neither
side of the argument is trustworthy.

--Fletch


OK, let's talk. Engage me about global warming (without castigating
Gore, please). I'd love to see some compelling evidence that man has
nothing to do with it. I have seen evidence having to do with global
warming on other planets and how it leads to the theory that it is
caused by sunspots. It's an interesting idea, but I ran it past an
astronomer friend of mine who studied warming on Venus (now there is a
hot place to be!) and he said while it might be a contributing factor,
the evidence to him seems overwhelming that human activity is playing a
bigger role.

I am not interested in dissent, I am interested in hearing other
viewpoints that carry scientific merit.

All the best,
Edwin