Anonymous goes "full 9/11 Truther"

a reply to: audubon

What the WTC designers hadn't planned for was long-lasting fires weakening the structural supports.

In a way they did.
Fire proofing.
But there is no way they could design a building to with stand a direct attack and survive 100%.
They had to make compromises.

It would be interesting to see how these arm chair experts would design the next WTC.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Thanks for the insults. But if we're strictly going by physics, would you kindly explain how a 767 of that size and weight can penetrate a structural steel facade that was designed to take the impact of a 767 ( as per the WTC architect himself.)

One its not a solid wall - it is a lattice of columns held together by welded spandrel plates then the sections bolted together

Plane impact snapped the welds and bolts holding the columns in place

Also engineers did calculations of loaded 707 hitting building - determined plane striking at speed would generate
lateral force of 13 million ft pounds against building

Calculated would take at least 17 million ft pounds of lateral force to topple the building

reference for this is book "CITY IN THE SKY: Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center"

a reply to: samkent

Problem is the fireproofing choose was not up to the job. Was chosen for lightness and easy of application

Was never tested for building of WTC size

In original application only applied to 1/2 inch thickness, later increased yo 1 1 /2 inch

Even then was insufficient. Add to fact the fire proofing had problems clinging to steel, often would peel off from vibrations over time

The aircraft impacts stripped the fireproofing off the steel leaving it exposed to fire

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
would you kindly explain how a 767 of that size and weight can penetrate a structural steel facade that was designed to take the impact of a 767 ( as per the WTC architect himself.)

Care to show us a source where the WTC architect said that?

youtu.be...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

care to provide any scientific model that captures the collapse?

Please list what is faulty with the model. Or would that interrupt a rant or two.

Jesus man, you're really sore over my comment. Do you need a time out?

I'll respond to all these when I have time. I work for a living, and not behind a desk and computer.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
would you kindly explain how a 767 of that size and weight can penetrate a structural steel facade that was designed to take the impact of a 767 ( as per the WTC architect himself.)

Care to show us a source where the WTC architect said that?

youtu.be...

He was not the WTC architect, in fact he had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC....
also exactly when did he mention a 767?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

care to provide any scientific model that captures the collapse?

Please list what is faulty with the model. Or would that interrupt a rant or two.

Jesus man, you're really sore over my comment. Do you need a time out?

I'll respond to all these when I have time. I work for a living, and not behind a desk and computer.

And you have time to still rant. Don't bother. I think it's time to drop ATS to make more time for fishing. I really hope you get out and find a way to enjoy life.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: facedye
a reply to: neutronflux

care to provide any scientific model that captures the collapse?

Please list what is faulty with the model. Or would that interrupt a rant or two.

you mean other than the fact that it doesn't show a whole building collapsing?

LOL

you've got to be kidding.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
would you kindly explain how a 767 of that size and weight can penetrate a structural steel facade that was designed to take the impact of a 767 ( as per the WTC architect himself.)

Care to show us a source where the WTC architect said that?

youtu.be...

He was not the WTC architect, in fact he had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC....
also exactly when did he mention a 767?

so because he didn't build the WTC with his own hands, this isn't a credible source?

by that same logic, the 9/11 commission report and the NIST report which you oh so desperately hang onto aren't credible sources either.

it's unbelievable to see what lengths you'll go to dismiss valid information.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
would you kindly explain how a 767 of that size and weight can penetrate a structural steel facade that was designed to take the impact of a 767 ( as per the WTC architect himself.)

Care to show us a source where the WTC architect said that?

youtu.be...

He was not the WTC architect, in fact he had nothing at all to do with the construction of the WTC....
also exactly when did he mention a 767?

He was the on-site construction manager so he wasn't just nobody.

The physics of the impact are the same, being that a long slender object is hitting a network of steel facade.

I could list the specs of both a 707 and 767, but the bottom line is that their isn't enough of a significance in size between the two ( which I'm certain you'll argue ) especially considered how much fuel was already depleted on both flights.

DP

originally posted by: facedye
so because he didn't build the WTC with his own hands, this isn't a credible source?

He was a teenager when the WTC was designed and built....

it's unbelievable to see what crap you make up to push a silly conspiracy theory!

a reply to: hellobruce

LOL, no theory is as silly as the official conspiracy theory. One must be gullible and uninformed and morbidly incurious to believe that one.

I could list the specs of both a 707 and 767, but the bottom line is that their isn't enough of a significance in size between the two ( which I'm certain you'll argue ) especially considered how much fuel was already depleted on both flights.

I'm struggling to see the problem here.

1 & 2 WTC were built to withstand the impact of a 707 but were in fact hit by a heavier and faster 767.

The buildings stayed up (for a while, obviously they collapsed in the end). In other words, they performed as intended.

So, what is the significance of this point?

a reply to: audubon


The only 'problem' is for the person defending the official story I suppose. Some say there are huge differences between a 707 and a 767. The truth is there are obvious differences, but percentage-wise in weight and speed, the differences are of no practical or meaningful consequence.

originally posted by: Salander
The only 'problem' is for the person defending the official story I suppose. Some say there are huge differences between a 707 and a 767. The truth is there are obvious differences, but percentage-wise in weight and speed, the differences are of no practical or meaningful consequence.

In what way is any of this a problem for the official version? Please spell it out - I genuinely don't see it.

a reply to: audubon

The fatal flaws in the official version are numerous and profound, but the issue of 707 v. 767 is not one of the fatal flaws. It is a trivial point, but invoked by defenders of the official story so they can say "well yes, the towers were designed to withstand the strike of a 707, but not a 767", even though the differences between weight and speed in the 2 models is insignificant.

The many fatal flaws of the official story are numerous, but this point is not one of them.

a reply to: Salander

well yes, the towers were designed to withstand the strike of a 707, but not a 767", even though the differences between weight and speed in the 2 models is insignificant.

They did withstand the impacts.

The fire did the buildings in.
Show us where anyone said the buildings were impervious to unfought fire.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Here is the video

A rather bleak assessment.

a reply to: hellobruce

I'm pushing a conspiracy theory?

looks like I spent the last couple of pages talking specifically about newton's first laws of physics in relation to what happened to the twin towers.

where's the theory?

while we're at it, where are the examples and cited sources I asked for?