Author Topic: Allancw's World  (Read 48628 times)

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2013, 07:26:51 AM »
...And what about the hundreds (thousands?) of people who were there and saw it happen live?  How is it that their accounts match the video evidence within the limits of human memory?
I agree. How exactly could thousands of ordinary New Yorkers have seen a plane that wasn't there?
Ecosia - the greenest way to search. You find what you need, Ecosia plants trees where they're needed. www.ecosia.org

I'm a member of Lids4Kids - rescuing plastic for the planet.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guruâ„¢
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2013, 09:41:40 AM »
...And what about the hundreds (thousands?) of people who were there and saw it happen live?  How is it that their accounts match the video evidence within the limits of human memory?
I agree. How exactly could thousands of ordinary New Yorkers have seen a plane that wasn't there?

My sister is one of those who saw the second plane hit live.  I'll take her word for it over some conspiracy shmuck.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2013, 12:04:42 PM »
Hence "almost certainly."  In a way, it would have been even harder for him to back down than LBJ.  And what people don't realize is that a lot of Civil Rights legislation wouldn't have happened without the assassination, because LBJ--that wily old Texan--was able to say, "We must pass this legislation to honour our fallen leader!"  Except Kennedy hadn't really cared all that much about it.  He used it to make political hay, but he didn't care as much as Bobby, who at the time didn't seem to care as much as LBJ. 

Actually, I've begun to think that Bobby was the more interesting of the two.  Jack was trying to fulfill their father's need to have an Irish President.  Joe, Jr., had died, so it was Jack's job.  When Jack died, I think Bobby underwent a lot of political changes, and I think he came out the other side a better person.  I think he went from seeing the Civil Rights Movement as a tool to actually believing in it, for example.  But we'll never know about Bobby, either, because an alumnus of my middle school stopped his Presidency before it got started.  Of course, we'll also never know if he would have won.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline jetlagg

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2013, 01:18:27 PM »
Alan, I have to join the chorus of people who don't believe you have any formal training as a photographer. I've done videography professionally for many years now, and, even being self taught, one of the very first things I learned was the difference between frame rate and shutter speed. Even volunteer workers who have never held a camera before learn that on their first day with me. To mistake the two is an incredibly elementary error, not to mention your apparent ignorance of other factors such as the cameras movement relative to the object, the direction of the object's movement, and everything else that has now been pointed out to you.

Offline Noldi400

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2013, 09:40:19 PM »
I personally would tend to agree with that provisionally; if JFK had lived, I don't believe our involvement in SE Asia would have ever reached the level it did.

Interestingly, that's almost certainly wrong.  Had Kennedy lived that day, he would have given a speech that included a statement reinforcing the fact that he believed the US needed to intervene in Vietnam.  RFK said until he died that he believed that his brother believed the US needed to prevent the Communist takeover of Vietnam.

Possibly. But we must also take note that JFK had already issued an Executive Order in October which began withdrawing our "Advisors" from South VN.  It may well be that the political climate there had become so chaotic that he was beginning to recognize that organized resistance to the Communist takeover was hopeless.  All we can know for sure is that actual combat troops and the real ramp-up came after LBJ took over.
"The sane understand that human beings are incapable of sustaining conspiracies on a grand scale, because some of our most defining qualities as a species are... a tendency to panic, and an inability to keep our mouths shut." - Dean Koontz

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2013, 10:06:51 PM »
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

He was not planning to pull out.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2013, 01:44:30 AM »
Sometimes conspiracy theorists bring up when a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building without causing significant structural damage. Not only was a B-25 bomber significantly slower than a 767, not only was it significantly smaller, but, correct me if I am wrong, but the Empire State Building was rather massively over-engineered, being, I believe, the first skyscraper of that kind of height.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2013, 03:16:42 AM »
Sometimes conspiracy theorists bring up when a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building without causing significant structural damage. Not only was a B-25 bomber significantly slower than a 767, not only was it significantly smaller, but, correct me if I am wrong, but the Empire State Building was rather massively over-engineered, being, I believe, the first skyscraper of that kind of height.

Boeing 767-223ER (North Tower)
Max T/O weight 395,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts

Boeing 767-222 (South tower)
Max T/O weight 315,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts

North American B-25 Mitchell Bomber
Max T/O weight 35,000lb
Cruise Speed 237 kts

Yep. The 767 travels at twice the speed of a Mitchell bomber, and weighs between 9 and 11 times as much; variant dependant.

I'd say that is very significant!
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2013, 03:20:35 AM »
Boeing 767-223ER (North Tower)
Max T/O weight 395,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 5.24 GJ

Quote
Boeing 767-222 (South tower)
Max T/O weight 315,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 4.18 GJ
Quote
North American B-25 Mitchell Bomber
Max T/O weight 35,000lb
Cruise Speed 237 kts
Energy: 0.118 GJ

I believe the actual speeds and weights for AA11 and UA175 are known more precisely, but they don't change the qualitative results.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 03:23:04 AM by ka9q »

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2013, 03:35:21 AM »
Boeing 767-223ER (North Tower)
Max T/O weight 395,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 5.24 GJ

Quote
Boeing 767-222 (South tower)
Max T/O weight 315,000 lb
Cruise speed: 470 kts
Energy: 4.18 GJ
Quote
North American B-25 Mitchell Bomber
Max T/O weight 35,000lb
Cruise Speed 237 kts
Energy: 0.118 GJ

I believe the actual speeds and weights for AA11 and UA175 are known more precisely, but they don't change the qualitative results.


Thanks.

To me, that looks about the same as the difference between dropping a red brick on your toes, and dropping a concrete breeze/cinder block.

Your toes will know the difference, trust me!.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2013, 03:47:25 AM »
Actual figures, from NTSB radar study:

UA 175 (south tower): 510 kts
UA 11 (north tower): 430 kts

Both planes were lightly loaded and had burned off some fuel taking off from Boston and flying to New York. I am looking for estimates of their weights but they'll certainly be less than the maximum T/O weights.

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2013, 03:53:21 AM »
UA175: 950 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. Not fully loaded.
AA11: 758 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. It was not fully loaded with passengers and cargo either.

Which leads me to a question: The physical ability for the plane to move so fast at such an altitude - is there information about this? Obviously it could, but would the plane be damaged by it?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 03:55:51 AM by Allan F »
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #27 on: October 23, 2013, 04:02:21 AM »
Even if it would be damaged by the standards of aviation (as in, needing some repairs before it's let into the air again), I don't think the terrorists cared too much about the plane's flightworthy status after they were done with it.
Also, thank you everyone for going into such exhaustive detail.
It really is a treat.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1967
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #28 on: October 23, 2013, 04:16:23 AM »
UA175: 950 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. Not fully loaded.
AA11: 758 km/t + about 38.000 liters of fuel. It was not fully loaded with passengers and cargo either.

Jet A-1 weighs about 0.8 kg/litre (or it was the last time I refuelled a A4K Skyhawk)  so 38,000 L of Jet A-1 is about 68,000 lb

That is about the weight of TWO fully loaded, fuelled and armed B-25 bombers!!
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 04:18:03 AM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline gwiz

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
Re: Allancw's World
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2013, 06:29:25 AM »
Which leads me to a question: The physical ability for the plane to move so fast at such an altitude - is there information about this? Obviously it could, but would the plane be damaged by it?
Events like the SilkAir crash show that an airliner can significantly exceed its rated "never exceed" speed before it starts to break apart.  However, I expect UA175 in particular would have been permanently bent out of shape if it had survived.
Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind - Terry Pratchett
...the ascent module ... took off like a rocket - Moon Man