представил си случай на сграда, горяла и непаднала. Това не е никакво доказателство.

Щото не е. Елементарни закони на логиката, важащи при доказване на каквото и да е. Четете!

- 2:05 The problem is that in 2001 was practically impossible to make a call with a sell phone from an airplane at cruising altitudes....
- 2:44 - David Dunbar: ...when do we talk to EXPERTS in the field and in fact sell phones DO WORK at that altitude up to 35,000 feet and HIGHER

Преди това същата тая елементарна "логика" е казвала, че земята е плоска, че слънцето се върти около нея и че от небето не могат да падат камъни, защото на небето няма камъни... нямате идея от основни правила в доказването на хипотези и ви куца дори и елементарната логика, няма какво да дискутираме

Те отричат и факта предсавен недвусмислено и от US Federal Aviation Administration:
Many of the in-flight calls made by victims of the September 11 attacks in 2001 were made over Airfone and Air One.

Не, Дозирис упорито не иска да повярва, че онези, които са летяли с вътрешните линии на САЩ през 2000, 2001 и първите два месеца на 2002 са ИЗПОЛЗВАЛИ сел фоните си в самолета по време на полет, не за да си чоплят носовета.
Защото, Той бил чел, че това е невъзможно. Следователно, ако пренебрегнем данните на очевидците и данните на експертите, остава да се позовем на лаици, иностранци и други виждали САЩ през кривия макарон на интернет.

"Once you get to a certain height, you are no longer in the range of the cellular network, because cell phone towers aren't built to project their signals that high." ~~ Washington Post, 12/9/04

"Today's vote by the FCC is intended to address whether technology has improved to the extent that cell phone calls now are possible above 10,000 feet -- they weren't in the past." ~~ San Francisco Chronicle, 12/15/04

Долното съобщение, е извадка от очиизвадните проиворечия на журналистическата филмова еквилибристика, но Дозирис и компания не искат да го разберат

„Елементарната логика сочи, че това е невъзможно!“

Преди това същата тая елементарна "логика" е казвала, че земята е плоска, че слънцето се върти около нея и че от небето не могат да падат камъни, защото на небето няма камъни.

Следователно, ако пренебрегнем данните на очевидците и данните на експертите, остава да се позовем на лаици, иностранци и други виждали САЩ през кривия макарон на интернет

2006-2014: Over 50 senior government officials from the military, intelligence, Cabinet and Congress, and over 100 highly respected professors, including engineers, physicists, architects, philosophers and theologians publicly criticize The 9/11 Commission Report as flawed, and call for a new, independent investigation. Over 2,000 architects and engineers have created a website calling for a new investigation. Some even claim rogue elements of government were involved in the attacks.

Ми може!

Both technical calculations and testimony from WTC structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net:



The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed (i.e., not at faster speeds perhaps flown by suicide pilots). With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.



So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it would be also a surprise for the 767 impact to have caused the South tower to fall.

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:
“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”