You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Food for Thought: WTC Was Designed to Withstand Direct Impact from a 707 (vid)
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
FredBloggs
Guest
Quote from Bitstream:
ROR!!!
that passport, u remember da picture?, was perfectly intact, not a page missin' and no burns whatsoever, but ya, da boxes, same material..ror, melted into oblivion.
was that the same passport of the innocent man - eeer, i mean evil scum bag muslim terrorist who has been found live and well in north africa?
hmmmm.
im starting to wonder if the cia got hollywood to come up with the plans for 9-11. i mean so far its about as plausible as con air or die hard. i mean they even got the fucking date to coincide with the number you ring in an emergency!
YOU COULDNT MAKE IT UP! but they did!
im fucking gob smacked!!!!
:eek:
The WTC did withstand the direct impact. As I recall, what brought down the buildings was the intense heat caused by the large quantity of burning jet fuel because the the planes were fairly full. If memory serves, the towers were not "over-engineered" for the level of heat that was produced, which weakened/softened/melted the buildings' frames sufficiently to collapse them. And once a few floors collapsed under their own weight because of the structural weakening, it created sufficient momentum to bring down the entire buildings. That was the story at the time. Although I have no familiarity with structural engineering or architecture, which I suspect is also the case with most respondents to this thread, it struck me as a plausible explanation.Quote from achilles28:
Below is an interesting video clip of Frank A. DeMartini - archetect, engineer and WTC construction manager - boasting the WTC was over-engineered to withstand a direct impact from a boeing 707:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6825174698620514684&q=WTC
Quote from Burtakus:
You might want to check your facts. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html can provide you with more accurate information. The 767 is a good bit larger and heavier than the 707.
Speaking of facts checking,
It's not the weight that counts only but the total energy impacted on the buildings.
From basic physics E=1/2*m*V^2 (energy = 1/2 mass times speed squared)
707 is a bit heavier, but its speed is also higher 550 mph vs 530 for the 767 series, so the comparison is much closer than just the weights.
Do not forget that the plane was not full either. about 90 passengers out of 184 max capacity for the 767-200
I wont even touch the 737 series were the max weight is less than 2/3 of a 707 and its speed also slower.
The tower designs also assume the worst case scenario to withstand all the plane impact energy to be absorbed by the building. On building #2 the plane hit the corner and portions of the plane fell out, so not even the whole impact energy was transferred to the building. In addition the designers talked about he ability to withstand multiple impacts.
You can confirm the above with any engineer or references to any physics/engineering hand book.
Quote from Thunderdog:
The WTC did withstand the direct impact. As I recall, what brought down the buildings was the intense heat caused by the large quantity of burning jet fuel because the the planes were fairly full. If memory serves, the towers were not "over-engineered" for the level of heat that was produced, which weakened/softened/melted the buildings' frames sufficiently to collapse them. And once a few floors collapsed under their own weight because of the structural weakening, it created sufficient momentum to bring down the entire buildings. That was the story at the time. Although I have no familiarity with structural engineering or architecture, which I suspect is also the case with most respondents to this thread, it struck me as a plausible explanation.
then explain wtc7..... CHECKMATE !!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from FredBloggs:
no. never!! this is impossible. remember - passports are made of plastic and paper, where as black boxes are made of the same stuff (STEEL) that MELTED in the inferno. everyone knows paper and plastic can easily withstand temps of 1000's of degrees without the slightest mark!
we know this because the cia and bush say so - so it MUST be true!!!!
id like to know who are the dumbest mutha fuckerz out there - the cia for thinking people would buy this shit - or the people who do buy this shit!
actually it was the "magic passport"... it went through the back of kennedy's head in the 60's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no checkmate because I am not playing a game. I don't pretend to be completely familiar with the whole event. I am only noting what I recall. If memory serves, I also vaguely recall that another, smaller building was subsequently demolished because it was damaged beyond reasonable repair. I'm more than just a bit hazy on this last point. I simply don't remember it sufficiently to offer any meaningful input.Quote from ratboy88:
then explain wtc7..... CHECKMATE !!!!!!!!!!!
Could someone please explain to me, with some specificity, what you guys are alluding to?
Quote from Thunderdog:
The WTC did withstand the direct impact. As I recall, what brought down the buildings was the intense heat caused by the large quantity of burning jet fuel because the the planes were fairly full. If memory serves, the towers were not "over-engineered" for the level of heat that was produced, which weakened/softened/melted the buildings' frames sufficiently to collapse them. And once a few floors collapsed under their own weight because of the structural weakening, it created sufficient momentum to bring down the entire buildings. That was the story at the time. Although I have no familiarity with structural engineering or architecture, which I suspect is also the case with most respondents to this thread, it struck me as a plausible explanation.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Quote from Thunderdog:
There is no checkmate because I am not playing a game. I don't pretend to be completely familiar with the whole event. I am only noting what I recall. If memory serves, I also vaguely recall that another, smaller building was subsequently demolished because it was damaged beyond reasonable repair. I'm more than just a bit hazy on this last point. I simply don't remember it sufficiently to offer any meaningful input.
Could someone please explain to me, with some specificity, what you guys are alluding to?
This is interesting. Maybe they want us all to be a bit hazy, especially regarding WTC7. I was in the same boat a few weeks ago, vaguely remembering something about a third building. It was very little reported as the twin towers stole the show that day.
5 hours after the towers fell, WTC7, otherwise unharmed except for a few inexplicable fires inside, came down perfectly in 6.2 seconds, falling into it's foot print at near free-fall speed. This was no small building. It was like 42 or 47 stories high!
Who had time to set up the charges in a burning building? How long does that take? Fire does not explain that fall at all. It's like a smoking gun. Then we have to reexamine the fall of the twin towers in light of WTC7.
There were buildings directly adjacent to WTC7, unharmed by either fire, the fall of the twin towers, or the fall of WTC7. About the only thing in common with the towers was same landlord, same insurance policy.