If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?...

reply to post by Yankee451


I really will be gentle here and do promise not to try ask you to "prove me wrong because that is unscientific, and that is the last thing I want to do" So prove your right: I happen to know because it's basic 101 in civil engineering and kinetic physics you hit target made of "A" other wise known as the "steel curtain" or post 1930's skyscraper design with "X" force thats mass times motion and then add the thermal or kinetic energy in another form and we can call that "Y" and thats the jet fuel which carries enormous amounts of "calories" thats what we (all you fat people can relax) are what happens when you take stored energy and release in what is a faster form of combustion, we call thermal energy. Look I am more aware of real conspiracies then you WANT to know, but the best, the real ones you will never know about. You have evidence that TBTB in the USA did this for any reason at all? That specific reason does not matter. SPITT IT OUT or shut up. I take the people and my countries protection very seriously and it has not been a safe life, at all. We have more things then imagined demons to worry about. There are real monsters out there and crap like this, de-focus'es our efforts.

reply to post by arbiture


You're believing a fairy tale told by real monsters; an animated made for TeeVee movie that even barnyard animals know isn't possible.

Aluminum wing tips do not trump steel, KE or not.

what if it was going 700mph??? 100+ than what the technicians concluded would withstand a direct hit jeopardizing the integrity of the structure entirely

Originally posted by yourmaker
what if it was going 700mph???

It wasn't.

Whatever speed it is traveling, the KE will be equally absorbed by both bodies. The tip of the wing would not contain enough mass or density of material to cut the steel. Just considering that the wings were swept back 35 degrees would mean the wings would strike at the corner of the columns from the fuselage-outward, in a sawing motion. Observe a close up below. Note how the damage to the columns on the left are on the left side of the columns, whereas if a left wing tip had caused the damage, it would be on the RIGHT side of the columns. This damage was not caused by a wing, even if a wing could saw through steel.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/465111fb6383.jpg[/atsimg]

100+ than what the technicians concluded would withstand a direct hit jeopardizing the integrity of the structure entirely

I find it much easier to believe 100 technicians would lie than a wing tip caused the above damage.

reply to post by Yankee451


the detonations inside opened the wall for the plane to enter??

reply to post by yourmaker


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/117fe6565b66.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e0bb62cb40a.jpg[/atsimg]

What we saw on the TeeVee could not possibly have made that damage.

reply to post by Yankee451


Guess what genius, I looked at what I heard, saw on TV, and was told from many sources and after a moment of deep shock, assumed it was all a lie. So I did my own calculations, go to the library, do the calculations yourself thats if you know what a "book" is and no it does not have keyboard attached to it . To get something printed not to long ago required a publisher to take a BIG CHANCE; hock his balls, his dog, his children not to mention his reputation. Unlike the internet they had better be right, or they end up doing something else like driving a cab, because THEY DID NOT CHECK IT OUT. Have a nice, well now its morning. God I hope this this not a waste of time.

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Guess what genius, I looked at what I heard, saw on TV, and was told from many sources and after a moment of deep shock, assumed it was all a lie. So I did my own calculations, go to the library, do the calculations yourself thats if you know what a "book" is and no it does not have keyboard attached to it . To get something printed not to long ago required a publisher to take a BIG CHANCE; hock his balls, his dog, his children not to mention his reputation. Unlike the internet they had better be right, or they end up doing something else like driving a cab, because THEY DID NOT CHECK IT OUT. Have a nice, well now its morning. God I hope this this not a waste of time.

Do you have a point you're trying to make here?

Are you trying to comment about the conversation from ten years ago, or is this therapy for you for some other ailment?

reply to post by Yankee451


I don't discuss any of my problems (that matter) with my Doctor's, they scare to easily. My point? You want to believe it's all a conspiracy? I won't take the time to outline in detail the social behavior that every human engages in when ever we cooperate with another human being, willingly or by force, its called "cooperative behavior" and ITS ALL a conspiracy. How can it not be. So its easy and understandable that we do often read more into particularly bad events then are quite frankly true. Pearl Harbor is another example. We were stupid, they (the Japanese) were not. Next. But as far as the WTC attacks, it's not a stretch to figure out the planes that hit them were more then sufficient to take them both down. Take one object of "X" mass moving very slow hitting anything may not be noticed, moving much faster someone also may not have time to notice, that they are aware of. Take a .45 caliber bullet, all I am armed with is a box of shells, no gun. As hard as I throw a bullet at something there is no way I will do anything but embarrass myself (and likely the bullet as well). But impart that same mass with enough kinetic energy? Its all the given amount of mass thats converted into a given amount of energy, in this case thermal (IR) energy. Nuclear thats a whole other area and, no I won't go in to it.

AS for the high jackers, why was the only good guy who was in possession of his brain at least it seemed so, on the receiving end an instructor at a flight school in Minnesota who after he was told in no uncertain terms by one of the high jackers "I don't need to know how to land or take off a plane just show me how to fly it" the one who said "whats wrong with this picture"? That guy was it seems the only one of the high jackers (I ever heard about) who was caught before hand. I can tell you very simply why the flight instructor called the Feds and screamed MOM! Because I am also a pilot and the first day of flight training, I wanted to know how to land a plane in one piece BEFORE I knew how to take off!

I could go on, but if any one has reasonable evidence that this atrocity was a conspiracy of the NWO (actually the real term is "The Chimera") the Jews, the Freemasons, The Knights of Columbus, The Boy Scout's or my late Grandmothers knitting club then , and I advise you go with no fanfare, but share your data in total with a trusted friend, and relative, but other then that tell no one for your own safety, then go to the feds. And if there in on it to? Well then were all f***** aren't we?

reply to post by arbiture


Interesting story.

Did you read the OP?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Can debate from now to end of time if FDNY could control the fires what would have been outcome...

Problem was given the flimsy state of construction - using sheetrock to line stairs/elevator shafts, thin guage web truss to supposrt floors vs solid I beams, inadequate fire proofing (which easily flaked or was knocked
off steelwork) the FDNY never had a chance

Without elevators to upper floors meant LONG SLOW EXHAUSTING slog up crowded stairs

Thin web trusses lacked mass and quickly heated up and began to sag

Inadequate fire proofing meant the steel work would heat up

Only one crew got anywhere impact area and fires - only to run out of time

It was lack off time caused by poor design and construction methods which doomed the buildings

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Can debate from now to end of time if FDNY could control the fires what would have been outcome...[/quote

The first tower collapsed after less than one hour of fire. This is simply not long enough to cause steel to fail.

[quoteProblem was given the flimsy state of construction - using sheetrock to line stairs/elevator shafts, thin guage web truss to supposrt floors vs solid I beams, inadequate fire proofing (which easily flaked or was knocked off steelwork) the FDNY never had a chance

This is nothing but speculation and assumptions. Using Sheetrock is not flimsy construction. Fire proofing also does not come into play with a fire lasting less than an hour.

Without elevators to upper floors meant LONG SLOW EXHAUSTING slog up crowded stairs

Again irrelevant, as the fire did not burn long enough to cause complete failure of major steel components resulting in a complete collapse with no mass left in its footprint, as would be required for the what you claim to be true (Not even the OS because they didn't explain the collapses).

Thin web trusses lacked mass and quickly heated up and began to sag

There is no evidence of this. Explain 'thin' and explain why engineers would use components that were not up to code, i.e. they would have to have a factor if safety of at least x2, and probably higher.

Inadequate fire proofing meant the steel work would heat up

Not enough in less than an hour to cause complete failure of a 110 story building from a couple of 'sagging trusses'.

Only one crew got anywhere impact area and fires - only to run out of time

Irrelevant. Your insistence that fires caused the collapses is nonsense.

It was lack off time caused by poor design and construction methods which doomed the buildings

Poor desgin? So why is this design still used today by most high rise buildings? Why has no other steel tube column (box column, HSS, hollow steel section, SHS, structural hollow section) building ever globally collapsed?

The first building to apply the tube-frame construction was the DeWitt-Chestnut apartment building which Khan designed and was completed in Chicago by 1963.[2] This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[3] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ANOK

Again irrelevant, as the fire did not burn long enough to cause complete failure of major steel components resulting in a complete collapse

And yet thats exactly what happened. So either:
1. There was a massive complex conspircay involving the placement and detonation of a significant amount of explosives in the builidng so perfectly concealed that they avoided detection for weeks, months or years and so perfectly placed that crashing a huge commercial aircraft into the building did not interfer in the least with their integrity or -
2. You are wrong about your how much the fire affected the steel.

I am going with 2.

with no mass left in its footprint, as would be required for the what you claim to be true (Not even the OS because they didn't explain the collapses).

Wow. First its everything was in the footprint, now its nothing left in the footprint.

reply to post by ANOK

This is nothing but speculation and assumptions. Using Sheetrock is not flimsy construction. Fire proofing also does not come into play with a fire lasting less than an hour.

If using sheetrock to line the stairwells/elevator shafts is not "flimsy construction" explain whay they are not using it for new buildings?

New WTC 7- used 2 ft of high strenght concrete to line the stairs/elevator shafts

The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction". The building has 2 ft (60 cm) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts. The original building used only drywall to line these shafts. The stairways are wider than in the original building to permit faster egress.

Concrete: The recent announcement by Ground Zero Developer Larry Silverstein regarding safety measures at the new 7 World Trade Center (WTC) building echoes what the concrete industry has been saying for years: Concrete is safer. The building’s core (where elevators, stairs, and power systems are located) will be encased in 2-foot-thick concrete for protection in the event of a fire or terrorist attack. “Cast-in-place reinforced concrete offers outstanding resistance to explosion and/or impact. Moreover, it can endure very high temperatures from fire for a long time without loss of structural integrity,” says Alfred G. Gerosa, president, Concrete Alliance Inc., New York City.

Concrete requires no additional fireproofing treatments to meet stringent fire codes, and performs well during both natural and manmade disasters. Because of concrete’s inherent heaviness, mass, and strength, buildings constructed with cast-in-place reinforced concrete can resist winds of more than 200 miles per hour and perform well even under the impact of flying debris.

With proper design, engineering, and construction, the seemingly rigid structures built with concrete can exhibit increased ductility - a must in areas prone to seismic activity. However, according to the Skokie, IL-based Portland Cement Association (PCA), the performance of any building during an earthquake is largely a function of design rather than the material used in construction

New WTC 1 (Freedom Tower) will use 2 1/2 ft of concrete in these locations

Originally posted by hooper

And yet thats exactly what happened. So either:

1. There was a massive complex conspircay involving the placement and detonation of a significant amount of explosives in the builidng so perfectly concealed that they avoided detection for weeks, months or years and so perfectly placed that crashing a huge commercial aircraft into the building did not interfer in the least with their integrity or -
2. You are wrong about your how much the fire affected the steel.

I am going with 2.

Well I'd have go with 1., but excluding all your opinionated drivel you feel the need to add. No matter how crazy it sounds, buildings defying known physics is far more crazy my friend.

Wow. First its everything was in the footprint, now its nothing left in the footprint.

This is because you are confused. Let me explain for you, please read slowly, and absorb and think.

WTC 7, landed mostly in its own footprint...



WTC 1 and 2, did not land in their footprints, debris was ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc around the towers.



After all this time you still can not get the argument straight? Next time remember this and you'll sound more like you know at least something about the arguments we put forward. I mean how can you claim we're wrong when you can't even get it right? It's obvious you don't care, and keeping people from questioning the OS is your motivation.

reply to post by thedman


Oh yes the towers collapsed because they used Sheetrock...

I'm not even going to respond to such a ridiculous argument.

You have a lot more to explain before we even get close to considering Sheetrock as a possible explanation for a complete global collapse of a 110 story steel framed building.

reply to post by ANOK

Well I'd have go with 1., but excluding all your opinionated drivel you feel the need to add.

Uh, what part is "drivel"? The explosives being concealed or so perfectly placed that crashing a plane into them would have no affect? Face it, the only drivel is the idea that someone wired the building with explosives.

No matter how crazy it sounds, buildings defying known physics is far more crazy my friend.

No, what's crazy is your concept of physics and its practical application.

This is because you are confused. Let me explain for you, please read slowly, and absorb and think.
WTC 7, landed mostly in its own footprint...

Mostly? So then this is "mostly" not defying physics?

WTC 1 and 2, did not land in their footprints, debris was ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc around the towers.

Here we go - how and when was this officially declared "symmetrical"?

After all this time you still can not get the argument straight?

Pretty hard to when every day it keeps changing - all in its footprint, not in its footprint, almost in its footprint, symmetrical, ejected, and on and on and on. Who has been given the duty of making all these unilateral declaraions?

Next time remember this and you'll sound more like you know at least something about the arguments we put forward.

Sorry, but I would need a super computer to keep up with all the variations.

I mean how can you claim we're wrong when you can't even get it right?

Because you all claim different opinions are all correct even when they are in direct contradiction of one another.

It's obvious you don't care, and keeping people from questioning the OS is your motivation.

Oh, I need not do anything to keep people from questioning the OS, no one is anyway.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The 707 may be slightly smaller and lighter than a 767, but it's faster speed increases the impact energy exponentially.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af0ce5ab65dd.gif[/atsimg]

For those who want to keep comparing the size of a 707 to a 767, there is no comparison. Those who have worked on both aircraft can tell you there is no confusing the two. A 767 is a widebody aircraft with a containerized cargo bin, a 707 is a narrowbody aircraft. Just for comparison of the fuselage interiors here is a 707 vs. a 767:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7c766d245f9.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/20efceb2d504.jpg[/atsimg]
And do not forget there is a cargo area taking up even more space in the lower half of the 767, loaded with LD2 containers:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d441be51106f.gif[/atsimg]

What that means impact wise, is the amount of energy given out by the fuselage would be similar to the caliber of a bullet. Everything else being equal, The larger caliber is always going to do much more damage then the smaller caliber.

Originally posted by defcon5
Everything else being equal, The larger caliber is always going to do much more damage then the smaller caliber.

edit on 4/4/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

But how about those wing tips? Are they larger or smaller caliber?

reply to post by ANOK


I would not expect you to understand the point I was making.....

I will repeat it S L O W L Y again

By lining the elevator shafts with sheetrock vs concrete meant that the elevator shafts were compomised
immediately - the elevator cables severed, jet fuel entered the shaftways and set numerous cars on fire
burning the occupants.

The impacts by destroying the elevators prevented FDNY members from reaching the impact floors in time

Because of this building codes changed

Changes included the widening of exit stairways and the hardening of stairwells and elevator hoistways, improved fireproofing and sprinklers, and the establishment of emergency elevators for evacuation and firefighter access

The above quote is from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth site

I did not state that using sheetrock caused the collapse, it was just one of number of things which caused the buildings to fail