2nd plane hits south tower.

I remember reading somewere that the designer of the WTC was interviewed after 9/11 or something and he said that the towers were designed to withstand the biggest plane in world "at the time" which wasn't the 767 cause it was released later. I forget where i read it unfortunatly or else i'd give you the link.
And dude, i understand a skyscraper requires some sort of integerty, but a 767 traveling at 540mph and with that weight... The momentum alone would punch a hole through the building and exit with a magority of the front of the fusealage more-or-less intact. Besides the entire "plane" entered the building before it exploded, kinda says something for the strenght of the craft.

Christ thats the link!!! Must have add your reply before i could give mine. Cheers Shanti23

Originally posted by Marquall
I remember reading somewere that the designer of the WTC was interviewed after 9/11 or something and he said that the towers were designed to withstand the biggest plane in world "at the time" which wasn't the 767 cause it was released later. I forget where i read it unfortunatly or else i'd give you the link.

This was probably Frank Demartini and the big jet at the time was the 707. The 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio because of its ability to reach higher speeds, and it would've hit the towers with more force than a bigger but slower 767.

The FEMA Report (section 1.5.2) states that the 767s that hit the WTC Towers weighed about 274,000 pounds, and the relevant, equiv. weight of a 707 would be 263,000 pounds.

According to Boeing sites (1, 2), the cruise speed of a 707 is 607 mph, and the cruise speed of a 767 is 530 mph.

To nip the argument of "well that's only a cruise speed!," the 707 also had a higher thrust to weight ratio.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Also, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

Source: FEMA Report with Commentary, section 1.5.2. Full calcs are there.

So (these are rounded to the nearest units):

707:
263,000 pounds (FEMA) = 119,545 kg (m)
607 mph = 271 m/s (v)
p = mv
p = 32,396,695 kg m/s
p = 32,397 Mg m/s

767:
274,000 pounds (FEMA) = 124,545 kg (m)
530 mph = 237 m/s (v)
p = mv
p = 29,517,165 kg m/s
p = 29,517 Mg m/s

So, taking speed or thrust/weight ratios into account, a 707 would have more momentum upon impact and would require more energy to stop than a 767 would. So if the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact, or multiple 707 impacts, then they were designed to withstand (a) 767(s). So that argument doesn't really work.

And either way, dude, think about it.

Jets are not dense. They're made mostly of aluminum and the fuselage is just a big hollow tube. Jets are made as light as possible so that they can fly in the air. That's never taken into account for skyscrapers, because skyscrapers don't have to fly. They only have to sit on the ground and support a lot of weight.

The WTC were very dense. Hundreds of steel columns, with the inner columns being very thick, and then you still have trusses and concrete slabs, of which you wouldn't be ramming through the width of (about 4" or so), but the length of (much bigger; breadth of an entire floor). Same with the trusses.

It would rip a jet apart immediately, no question. Just flying through a single row of perimeter columns would destroy a jet.

Page 4 of this article by New York Times writer James Glanz has some interesting info on the "airplane impact calculations."

Leslie E. Robertson, the man charged with designing the guts of the twin
towers performed the calculations.
He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out."

An architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour.

Nobody contested the results at the time.

The calculations were done after the building was designed. Thus, it is incorrect to say that “the building was designed to withstand an impact of such and such . . . ,” because that is not what happened. Robinson designed the building, then as an afterthought, he “calculated” if the structure could withstand the impact of a plane.

You conveniently left out this part:

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.

The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

(emphasis added)

Third tower collapse. Third tower collapse. Airplane did not hit third tower.

Troy

No, but lots of debris from the first and second towers did.

Notice all of the busted windows.

from the firemen on site that day, there was a visible bulge in the side of the building about 1:00 pm.

There was a hole 20 stories high scooped out of the south face.

Confirms something is not quite right with the story.

The Projector.

thewebfairy.com...

Here are stills from the video posted in my first post.

I will compile part 2 later.

You can view them all here at one of the better sites.
terrorize.dk...

I saw the strike live and I claim that the plane came from the North so that is the explanetion. The pictures you see have all been faked. When I saw the collision the plane exploded before it entered the building suggesting it had a bomb aboard or that it exploded on contact.

Originally posted by Looter
I saw the strike live and I claim that the plane came from the North so that is the explanetion. The pictures you see have all been faked. When I saw the collision the plane exploded before it entered the building suggesting it had a bomb aboard or that it exploded on contact.

Let me get this right. You claim to have been there live on 9/11 and that the 2nd plane that hit the south tower came in from the north and hit it is that right?

I saw it live on TV, yes the plane hit the north face, the videos are all wrong.

I always find getting exactly what I look for difficult
but this seems an appropriate thread to start.

I saw the story of people coming down on the south tower.
They were blocked by people going up saying there was fire down
below and that the thing to do was to go up.
Well on the landing a voice was heard beyond a wall of double
drywall and two guys started in toward the voice.
One guy said there was too much smoke and went up the stairs.
The trapped man got free and these last two went down the stairs
and live today.

The trapped man said he saw the plane approaching the Tower
and it had a U on the tail. He mentioned the color of the plane and
the color of the U on the tail.

Any one know of the two and what the colors were.
I would need a refresher course on 911 to know what airline
hit what building so I have to ask if a United plane hit the
South Tower and if the colors were correct in the survivors
statement.

Thanks for any answers. It might take time for me to track down
the answers and without asking it might take longer.