Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Paranoia (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-paranoia/)

- - what happened on 911 (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-paranoia/67071-what-happened-911-a.html)

Its refreshing watching your debate dilbert, and willravel. So civil :thumbsup:

/Sorry for the jack, just needed to say something about this; its worthy of note/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

Its refreshing watching your debate dilbert, and willravel. So civil :thumbsup:

/Sorry for the jack, just needed to say something about this; its worthy of note/

Thanks for the words or praise, in reality we've been saving them and arming ourselves; as soon as Will drop the 'in the hand of the government' bomb on me, my 'stinky doodoo head' missiles launch. God forgive us when we escalate to dog doo on a stick.
:lol:

Good luck on explaining building 7 in any way that we will believe.
Like i said before, coincidences do happen, but when a theory being passed off as a true story requires almost every aspect of it to be a coincidence then it just doesn't seem legit to me.

Some of what you suggest is maybe possible, but a slight chance.

Does anyone have a complete list of all the organizations, companies, etc who are in on this?

You can argue science no one here is really qualified to discuss beyond a novice level all you want, but people are different. Just who all was in on this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

-NIST, and thus the companies that the NIST outsourced to for the work, including but not limited to Underwriters Laboratories

-FEMA

-Popular Mechanics

Bear in mind that this obviously does not include everyone in the organizations. In fact, it includes only a handfull of people. How many people at NIST do you think worked on their report? It's been estimate that no more than 24 people worked for or at the NIST to write their report. FEMA? Well, there are field people, and then the writers, and then the editors....so to be generous, that's maybe 70. Popular Mechanics? 7-12 people maybe. That's a little over a hundred people.

That's about 106. Exactly 106.

.....Yeah, like I have any idea who would be in on this. Please, give me a break. :crazy:

How many were just following orders and how many did the planning? It isn't the same thing. If each person knows their part and nothing more the plan would still work. Somewhere afterwards there would be people who figured out they were involved even though they may not have known at first.

Silence can be bought from the main players, the lesser ones... herd them onto the planes. :eek:

Quote:

Yes, they are involved in planning to drive planes into the WTC towers. No one speaks a word to anyone. And then are somehow convinced to get on said planes they knew were going to be crashed into the WTC? Not one left messages to family members what was going on?

How about the people involved on forcing these people onto a plane which disappears? How about the 2-3 guys left at the office wondering where everyone in their departement went?

How big of a conspiracy does it have to get to suit your views?

There are legitimate questions about the events of 9/11. I recommend a visit to this site: http://911review.org/ScholarsforTruthabout911/

It is unclear what struck the Pentagon but it was not a commercial aircraft based on the evidence. One photo shows a part from a JT8D turbojet engine, consistent with an aircraft unlike the one that was claimed.

The Editor In Chief of the 125 year old monthly magazine, Fire Engineering, called the investigation into the Twin Towers collapse a farce. ($elling Out the Investigation, January 2002)

Ed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

One person big wig in Hollywood, David Angell producer of Wings, Cheers, Frasier... he'd have to be in on it too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdWest

First, welcome to the board.

Second, learn to fact check.

the quote you refer to is taken out of context The editor in chief, Bill Manning was referring to the FEMA investigation, not the 9/11 commission. I would go into more detail, but I am lazy, and this site does a good job:
http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html

As for the JT8D, please site a source as how it was identified.

lastly, ScholarsforTruthabout911, most if not all of the bogus claims mentioned on this page have been debunked in this thread, its a long read, but please start from the beginning and read through to the end.

Better yet read what www.911review.com has to say about 911review.org .

http://911review.com/911review/index.html

The 9.11 review.COM site does a good job but even there they have some findings i disagree with.

The Pentagon plane evidence looks planted to me. for instance on this page here it shows a wheel.

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

OK, problems... ONE wheel, obviously in a fire. Where are the others? It should be magnesium which will burn and should have disappeared. Where are the spindles? How did the wheel come off if it was bolted on with the bearings in place? That area isn't broken away.

If there is planted evidence the whole thing has to be viewed as a fraud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

Um... the wheel is rubber, in the crash it would be torn apart, just like the wheel, look at the rim on the wheel, it is much damaged. as for the other wheels, they are in the rubble, either in small enough pieces that they blend in, or more likely that they just were not photographed, or you have not seen the photographs of them, I’d say 50/50.

Dil, how do you explain the wheel being off the spindle? It sure as heck couldn't break off.

Came across something else, and while is sure doesn't help my side of the argument any it's just too incredible a shot to not point out.

http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/2281432

:eek:

Why could it not break off? When a plane crashes things break, it’s a no brainier, throw a car at a wall, it breaks, throw it faster it breaks more. Don’t forget that the kinetic energy increase is = to the mass times the square of the velocity, when the velocity doubles, the energy increases by 4 times. with a fast moving plane, it is hard to understand the magnitude of the forces involved.

and yeah that shots incredible.

As a researcher with over 25 years of experience, I'm seeing what is commonly referred to as obfuscation here. Primary component: emotional attacks.

Here are the unanswered questions: http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

I do not hate this current administration or anyone involved in the investigation. Asking questions is part of what it means to be a citizen of the United States. Telling people to not ask questions, that is un-American.

Good-bye,
Ed

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdWest

As a researcher with over 25 years of experience, I'm seeing what is commonly referred to as obfuscation here. Primary component: emotional attacks.

With 25 years of experience, I would expect you to have found that Bill Manning quote has been taken out of context, and that he, and his magazine published several articles agreeing with the official line, fire causes the trusses to weaken, leading to collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdWest

Here are the unanswered questions: http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html

I do not hate this current administration or anyone involved in the investigation. Asking questions is part of what it means to be a citizen of the United States. Telling people to not ask questions, that is un-American.

Good-bye,
Ed

You are right, there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding 9/11, and the site you reference has a lot of good questions that need to be answered. What did we know and when, why were certain actions taken and others not; these questions are appropriate, however, from the evidence it is clear that a jet did impact the pentagon.

It is American to ask questions; however, it is important to ask informed questions, do some research before making claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't think that these are crazy questions to ask.
Much of teh discssion in this thread has centered around the conspiracy theorists questioning the current story the way we know it.

A good discussion involve questions that go the other way as well.
What are some of the other questions for the theorists?

- Why not just bomb the buildings down instead of crashing a plane into them if you had charges preset on many floors. This would simplify the cover up. Fewer people involved, fewer witnesses, fewer variables, fewer possible problems?
- If not a plane, what did hit the pentagon? Was it done by the U.S. on purpose? If so, then why not a plane as planes were used in the destruction of the towers.
- Who was involved? Where is the evidence like phone records, emails, other communications, plans, money?

Alot has been done to try to prove the generally accepted version of what happened.

What can you do to prove what you say happened?

Please tell me that everyone saw South Park tonight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Please tell me that everyone saw South Park tonight.

I just did, awesome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

I just did, awesome.

Did I miss something?

Yes you did, south park (season 10 episode 9) was about the 9/11 conspiracy.

I've been away a few days, no TV.

I see in today's paper where a plane crashed into a Manhattan hi rise , set it on fire and it didn't collapse. Weird. The story mentions the overreaction to the incident also. You would think with the knowledge that buildings will collapse in fires they wouldn't have sent hundreds of cops and firemen there.

Here is more stuff we haven't touched on. Seems there are these odd coincidences at every turn. :|

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

We don't want to jump to conclusions on every little bit as some may not be accurate though i think a lot of it is and needs to be considered. Take the event as a whole, regardless of whether it's theoretically possible for steel to expand six inches in a fire :rolleyes: , to make the whole 9/11 deal legit requires believing a whole series of crazy improbable things. I'm not sure if any oddsmakers have even tried to calculate the odds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Please tell me that everyone saw South Park tonight.

I seen it. good stuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

I see in today's paper where a plane crashed into a Manhattan hi rise , set it on fire and it didn't collapse. Weird. The story mentions the overreaction to the incident also. You would think with the knowledge that buildings will collapse in fires they wouldn't have sent hundreds of cops and firemen there.

Please tell me you're being intentionally dense here. Please. Are you really equating the crash of a Cirrus SR20 to that of a 757? Are you really? really? a building may be called a building, but that doesn't mean all buildings are identical structures. but really? you can't be serious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

to make the whole 9/11 deal legit requires believing a whole series of crazy improbable things. I'm not sure if any oddsmakers have even tried to calculate the odds

To make the whole 9/11 conspiracy true requires believing a whole series of crazy improbable things. I'm not sure if any oddsmakers have even tried to calculate the odds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoge W. Bush in southpark

Quite simple to pull off really. All I had to do was have explosives planted in the base of the towers. Then on 9/11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just re-routed them to Pennsylvania. Then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses on flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missle. It was only the worlds most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever, ever.

^^^ That whole sequence on the show was pretty funny, especially the reoccuring 1/4 of people are retarded.

I have a question, I'm sure it has been addressed in this thread, but since I have only been lightly following this topic I am forced to ask.

Why has no one come forward and exposed the government it this was such a broad and massive conspiracy? I mean this administration can't fart without their being a leak to the press, and yet there have seemingly been no direct and legitimate allegations, no one coming forward exposing foul play within the military, which is also interesting, I've heard that 9/11 was a coup at the pentagon. I digress, where are all the people that are dead? They were killed by the government then? Why does Al Qaeda take credit, or are they apart of the conspiracy too?

I have South Park on Tivo, I really really hope it recorded it right. Sometimes Comedy centrals timing is off.

if you missed it you can watch the whole episode here http://www.southparkx.net/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

I mean this administration can't fart without their being a leak to the press, and yet there have seemingly been no direct and legitimate allegations, no one coming forward exposing foul play within the military, which is also interesting, I've heard that 9/11 was a coup at the pentagon. I digress, where are all the people that are dead? They were killed by the government then? Why does Al Qaeda take credit, or are they apart of the conspiracy too?

They could be faking it; it is hard to believe an administration could be that stupid.

Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations (or most who hate the US), would love taking credit for something like 9/11.

It's hard to believe a President could get in power who is that stupid... but it happened.

Maybe Bush needed a month-long break beforehand to prepare for a busy period to follow?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLI...bush.crawford/

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

First, the plane was tiny, second it was not going nearly as fast, third it does not carry nearly as much fuel, fourth, and the construction of the building is entirely different. These 2 situations are completely different. It’s just as asinine as saying my Sherman tank was barley damage when it was rear ended by the Volvo going 20 mph so my mini van should be ok when it is hit by a bus going 120 mph.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

Here is more stuff we haven't touched on. Seems there are these odd coincidences at every turn. :|

http://killtown.911review.org/wtc6.html
http://killtown.911review.org/buffett.html

We don't want to jump to conclusions on every little bit as some may not be accurate though i think a lot of it is and needs to be considered. Take the event as a whole, regardless of whether it's theoretically possible for steel to expand six inches in a fire :rolleyes: , to make the whole 9/11 deal legit requires believing a whole series of crazy improbable things. I'm not sure if any oddsmakers have even tried to calculate the odds

as for the hole in the basement in WTC 6, each of the buildings had huge massive diesel generators in the basement, but no, explosives would not create a hole like that, its again asinine to think that an explosion would make that hole, a blast that would cause that hole would have thrown debris for miles and blown windows for blocks, again, these people have no clue about explosives.

Taking the event as a hole, it’s much easier to believe that some pissed off Muslims hijacked planes and crashed them into towers then some big elaborate scheme orchestrated and covered up by a bunch of idiots in the government. Why is it so hard to think people in the world don’t like us? Why must you create bogymen, the world is scary enough as it is with out fictitious enemies. Everyone in power would have to be in on the plot, or someone in an office would raise a stink about it. Don’t you think the democrats that are trying to get back in power would cry foul about the investigation, about a cover-up? Do you actually think everyone is involved? If its so obvious to even you, shouldn’t it be obvious to everyone else? Its not obvious to everyone else because there is nothing else here, there were no explosives, there was no cruise missile, just a bunch of pissed off Muslims in planes. Lastly, it is not a bunch of improbable events:

Gaining entry into the country is easy as pie, fake visa, fake what ever, its easy. Second, getting flight training is easy, only takes money. Third sneaking weapons onto planes, piece of cake, I’ve seen poly carbonate knives that are completely non metal, and a razor blade does not contain enough metal to be picked up by lax metal detectors, my steel toe boots never set off an alarm before 9/11, a little blade wont either. Hijacking a plane is easy too, before 9/11, the doctrine for a hijacking was to fly to comply until it was over, no one thought they would use the planes as weapons, the flight crew was probably told they would not be harmed if they cooperated, them, kicked out of the cock pit and then its all over. So what is the probability of the building collapsing, 5%, 50%, 100% we don’t know, there was definitely a chance, and large or small they did collapse, we either were very unlucky, or luck may have had nothing to do with it, bottom line, is there were no explosives found in the building, no residue, no traces, no damage resembling blasts. However, there were plenty of warped girders. There is no evidence to support an explosion, except a few photos that look like blast are going off, but those could be caused by other things too, such as the compacting air. I don’t see why this is so hard for you, it’s pretty damn obvious. Sure there are small things that don’t quite fit, but they are small, just like with the theory of evolution, small parts don’t fit, so the theory is adjusted to match the evidence, just like 9/11. The theory was adjusted to fit the evidence, the hijackers that were allegedly still alive, liars, or crappy intelligence. This still does not change the fact that planes were hijacked and crashed into the towers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

Come on.
I'm not even sure which side I'm standing on, as the waters still seem too muddy. In the beginning, I was a follower of the conspiracy theory. Now I'm not too as certain as before.
Regardless of what I believe, you can not seriously compare the impact of a small personal aircraft with that of a 757. The mere acceleration and mass of the 757 dwarfs whatever effect that other plane could do.

Sometimes, a bird hits a chimney. The chimney doesn't collapse. It's the same kind of thing.

I dont participate anymore because I'm not sure which side to support. But if you're going to argue your opinion of what happened, please support it well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by biznatch

Sometimes, a bird hits a chimney. The chimney doesn't collapse. It's the same kind of thing.

And that bird's left foot goes through 6 chimneys.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

And that bird's left foot goes through 6 chimneys.

Come on will... the density of a bird foot is not comparable to that or a solid metal engine turbine.

But if one of the birds feet goes through the six chimneys and the other disintergrates in the explosion....

Since Dil is adding up all that fits how about the very strange Shanksville crash? A tiny crater that was ringed in green grass even though a few hundred feet away the forest was burned. They found an engine in the forest yet everything else fit into that neat little hole. So how did that engine get there? Perhaps a trampoline was setup where the plane crashed and the engine bounced off it? What about the fire or lack of?

The picture in the paper today showed a raging fire in two windows of the building, that's 1800 degrees ain't it? Does it matter if the plane was 747 or a Pitts biplane if the fire makes steel expand six inches? The bathtub plumbing could push the walls out.

Why does this sound ridiculous when your "facts" don't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

Since Dil is adding up all that fits how about the very strange Shanksville crash? A tiny crater that was ringed in green grass even though a few hundred feet away the forest was burned. They found an engine in the forest yet everything else fit into that neat little hole. So how did that engine get there? Perhaps a trampoline was setup where the plane crashed and the engine bounced off it? What about the fire or lack of?

Well you get your facts wrong, and distort the rest. the grass was not green, it was yellow, second, the crash took place at the tree line, not in the field, so no it was not surrounded by grass at all, just one side, third, the angle the plane hit was steep, but still at an angle, the plane hit into the tree line, so when it hit, the fuel and debris went into the tree, not into the field, this is why the grass did not get burned, it was not hit by the plane or the fuel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

The picture in the paper today showed a raging fire in two windows of the building, that's 1800 degrees ain't it? Does it matter if the plane was 747 or a Pitts biplane if the fire makes steel expand six inches? The bathtub plumbing could push the walls out.

Why does this sound ridiculous when your "facts" don't?

Because you still don’t understand the difference between heat and temperature. There was not enough heat to increase the temperature by 1800C.

Here's another couple sites to check...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://www.flight93crash.com/
check the discussion board at that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

Come on will... the density of a bird foot is not comparable to that or a solid metal engine turbine.

If you compare the size of the birds foot to a directly proportional mini-chimney interesting similarities can occur. For the sake of science, let's use a Pacific Parrotlet (Forpus coelestis coelestis); being of small bird size (comparably to the plane).
http://www.celebirds.com/images/PacificParrotlet.jpg
The average weight of a Pacific Parrotlet, also known as the Ridgway's Parrotlet, can be noted as an average of 31-34 grams. A recent journal published by Wilson Bulletin via BioOne: EMS Provider Program found that

Quote:

Birds can gain an advantage in flight efficiency by reducing the size and mass of body parts that are not essential during flight.

Taking this into consideration, we can then assume that the foot of a bird would weigh less during flight, and thus carry less kenetic energy upon impacting a chimney (unless the bird prepared itself for the blow, but lets stay on topic). In the classic work, On Growth and Form, D'Arcy Thompson gives measurements of the relative weight of bones of various mammals and their body weights: bone is about 8% of the body weight of a mouse or a wren, 13% of a goose or a dog, and about 17 to 18% of a man's weight. As the animal becomes larger, the bone becomes a greater proportion of body weight because the bones are proportionally larger in diameter. Notice that for the smaller animals, D'Arcy Thompson pairs a mammal with a bird showing that the principle holds for two different groups of animals.

Now, for the specific mass of the bird's foot. This article from Harvard shows a correlation in the allometry of bat wings and legs in comparison with bird wings and legs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smithsonian/NASA ADS General Science Abstract Service

Title: Allometry of Bat Wings and Legs and Comparison with Bird Wings
Authors: Norberg, Ulla M.
Publication: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Volume 292, Issue 1061, pp. 359-398
Publication Date: 06/1981
Origin: JSTOR
Bibliographic Code: 1981RSPTB.292..359N

Abstract

Allometric equations on wing dimensions versus body mass are given for eight species of megabats and 76 species of microbats, on forearm length versus mass for 14 species of megabats and 90 species of microbats, and on lower leg length versus mass for 11 species of megabats and 45 species of microbats. Megabats have, on average, shorter wing span, small wing area, higher wing loading and lower aspect ratio than have frugivorous microbats and the insectivorous vespertilionids of similar mass. Vespertilionids have the longest span, largest wing area and lowest wing loading in relation to body mass of the bat groups for which regression lines were calculated (megabats, frugivorous microbats, vespertilionids, molossids), characteristics that are important for slow flight and manoeuvrability for insect capture. Molossids have the highest wing loading of the groups. There is a weak tendency towards higher aspect ratio for larger bats than for smaller ones (positive slope). The slopes for most characters fit geometric similarity or have confidence intervals including the value for geometric similarity. Only in three cases does the slope lie nearer that for elastic similarity: for the forearm in nycterids and emballonurids and the lower leg length in molossids. Also in these cases the confidence intervals are wide and include the value for elastic similarity and that for geometric similarity as well. In megabats the slope for the lower leg length is much steeper than for geometric similarity. The slope for the forearm length is rather similar to that for wing span in the various groups. Megabats and frugivorous microbats have rather similar slopes for all the characters measured, but differ from the other groups only in wing area, wing loading and aspect ratio. The two frugivorous bat groups also have about the same elevation of the regression lines for aspect ratio and forearm length. Megabats and frugivorous microbats thus show a close convergence in wing area, wing loading, aspect ratio and forearm length. The regression equations provide `norms' for the respective bat groups. Those species that deviate 10% or more from the mean trends for wing measurements are divided into different groups, based on the wing's aspect ratio and loading. Bats with low aspect ratio wings usually have large pinnae, which improve the ability to discover small objects such as insects on leaves. Families or species of bats with wings of low aspect ratio are, for instance, Megadermatidae, Nycteridae, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum (Rhinolophidae), Chrotopterus auritus (Phyllostomidae) and Plecotus (Vespertilionidae). The group with average aspect ratio wings contains bats with different kinds of flight style and foraging behaviour, for instance many pteropodids, phyllostomids and vespertilionids. Bats with high aspect ratio wings are, for instance, Molossidae, Rhynchonycteris naso (Emballonuridae) and Nyctalus leisleri (Vespertilionidae). The regression lines for wing span, area and loading in megabats lie almost in the region of the lines for Greenewalt's (1975) passeriform group, whereas the span and area for vespertilionid bats are larger and the wing loading much smaller than for most birds of similar mass. Molossid bats have a larger relative wing span and aspect ratio than have most birds, and a wing area and loading similar to those of small birds of the passeriform group. Vespertilionid bats have about the same aspect ratio as birds of the passeriform group, whereas megabats have somewhat lower ratios. Molossid bats show strong convergence with swifts and swallows in foraging behaviour and in wing form. Similar convergences can be found between various vespertilionid bats, flycatchers and swallows.

In The Journal of Experimental Biology 206, 1085-1097; Leg morphology and locomotion in birds: requirements for force and speed during ankle flexion let's take a closer look at page 1087.

Quote:

To avoid problems associated with colinearity between body mass and tarsometatarsus length (which affects the confidence interval for the regression), a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted (on the natural logarithms for body mass and tmt) by rotating these data sets using the correlation matrix. This procedure first standardizes the variables by subtracting the mean for all species and then dividing the variables by the standard deviation (S.D.) before the analysis is conducted. The scores for PC1 and PC2 were then used as independent variables in a multiple linear regression where loged was treated as the dependent variable, so that:

loged = a1+ b1PC1+ b2PC2+ ?1, (1)

where PC1 and PC2 are the first and second principal components of logeMand logetmt, a1is the intercept, and b1 and b2 are the regression coefficients of PC1 and PC2, respectively. The term ?1 represents the residual, which is independent of PC1 and PC2 and hence also independent of logeMand logetmt. In this way dcan be viewed as normalized describing the orthogonal vectors that maximally separate the groups. The means of the DF scores for the groups were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals of the means. All analyses were conducted with SPSS 10.0, except for the PCA and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, which were performed according to SAS procedures (version 8.0). During the last decade, the effect of phylogeny on comparative studies has been fully recognized (e.g. Felsenstein, 1985; Cheverud et al., 1985; Harvey and Pagel, 1991; Martins and Hansen, 1996). It is possible that the groups identified in this work coincide with phylogenetic groups, consequently the species should not be considered as statistically independent units (Felsenstein, 1985; Harvey and Pagel, 1991). Several methods have been developed to allow for the phylogenetic effect (for a review, see Martins and Hansen, 1996), but they all have some limitations. The main problem with these methods is that they depend on a good estimate of the phylogeny, including estimates of branch lengths as well as interpretations of excluded branches.

After plugging in the proper weight, and measurements, we can assume (within 95% accuracy) that the average weight of a Pacific Parrotlet's foot is 4.03 - 4.42 g (avg.= 4.22 g). The average flight speed of a Parrotlet it 36.9 km/h^–1. Now, to find the foot's kinetic energy:

KE = 1/2 • m • v^2
where m = mass of object
v= speed of object

KE = 1/2 • 4.22 g • 36.9 km/h
KE = 77.859 g/km/h

A 757 weighs, at maximum, 255,000 lb (115,680 kg). Thus the ratio between a 757 and a Pacific Parrotlet is about 7,500 parrotlets : 1 757 (not taking into account the lightened foot mass during flight).

The typical masonry chimney has a traditionally wide-framed 36x28 doorset (with doors wide open) which will usually have a clear opening of about 30" by 25" high, and a height of 30'. That's 750 square inches of opening area. The WTC reached 1,450 feet high and had a width of 208 feet (63.4 m) x 208 feet (63.4 m). Thus the comparison between the typical masonry chimney and the WTC is around 5662.5265 chimneys : 1 WTC. The kinetic energy generated by the 757 (assuming it was traveling around 540 mph (868 km/h) 530 knots (982 km/h)):

KE = 1/2 • 115,680 g • 982 km/h
KE = 567,988 g/km/h

After combining the two ratios, and kinetic energies, the final ratio is 564,375 Pacific Parrotlet/chimney : 567,988 757/WTC. Thus we may conclude that the foot of a Pacific Parrotlet, 7,500% its normal size, would create a similar impact to the 757's. And we can also conclude that a 757, 7.5 • 10^-4% smaller than its usual size, would impact a chimney in the same way.

http://www.moodsmilies.com/smilies/sleepy/passedout.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch'i

If you compare the size of the birds foot to a directly proportional mini-chimney interesting similarities can occur. For the sake of science, let's use a Pacific Parrotlet (Forpus coelestis coelestis); being of small bird size (comparably to the plane).

The average weight of a Pacific Parrotlet[/URL], also known as the Ridgway's Parrotlet, can be noted as an average of 31-34 grams.

Why didn't you use the European swallow or African swallow?

http://www.armory.com/swallowscenes.html

Weak arguments from both sides. They both need to go home and practice debating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Weak arguments from both sides. They both need to go home and practice debating.

loose change had weak arguments, getting there facts wrong, and being surprised when told the truth (the company they said rates steel that really doesn't, the expert that specialized with water quoted for steel facts...) but yes both sides are poor debaters.