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

Originally posted by thedman
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.

Nonsense.

How does severed cables, jet fuel entering the shafts etc., cause a complete global collapse of the building?

BTW no elevators would have dropped...

The safety brake, together with a speed-sensing governor, acts to stop an elevator if it should overspeed in the down direction. If an elevator overspeeds, the governor makes the safety grasp the rails on which the car travels, bringing the elevator to a safe emergency stop...
...Buffers, located in the "pit" below the car, serve to cushion any unplanned travel below the lowest landing.

www.us.schindler.com... (not a damned fool conspiracy site, sry)

Elevators usually get stuck between floors during fires, trapping the passengers in them. Modern els are made fire resistant.

The impacts by destroying the elevators prevented FDNY members from reaching the impact floors in time Because of this building codes changed

Not because it leads to complete global collapse of the building. But regardless how many more times, ONE hour of fire is not going to cause a 110 story building to collapse completely to its basement, not possible.

The code changes were for fire safety of people, not the structural integrity of the building.

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

No it didn't cause the building to fail, at all, it made NO difference to the collapse. None, zero, squat. The Sheetrock had nothing to do with he buildings ability to hold itself up, or stop it completely collapsing from fire.

Sorry but you are going to have to come up something better than that to continue this discussion.

Originally posted by hooper

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.

I didn't say it would have no effect, but you want it to be more than an effect, you want it to have caused the complete global failure of the whole 110 story tower. Big difference.

Who said they wired the building? I didn't. All I try to show is that there had to be another energy source acting on the towers, because its impossible for them to have completely collapsed themselves with no mass left in their footprints. Physics trumps your incredibility.

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

LOL you keep saying this, but you have yet to show how my concept of physics is wrong. It's easy to say this, but not so easy to actually prove is it? Otherwise you would have by now instead of this reply.

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

Again you pick on a word instead of addressing the physics. Yes any implosion collapse is designed to land most of the building in its footprint. If I say ALL if it you'll only pick on the small amount of debris that rolled outside of the footprint. If the outer walls are on top of the rest of collapsed building then what would you call it? That is the definition of 'in its own footprint'. There is no other way a building can have its outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building, regardless of fire, free-fall speed, or damage to one side.

You can not account for the walls being on top of the collapsed building. Nothing you claim addresses this problem.

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

Here we go indeed, from FEMA...



Don't you even know the OS you so desperately support?

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?

It doesn't keep changing, it's been that way since 9/11. How can it change lol, only the OS has changed.
Anyway ongoing research is bound to change some points when new information becomes available, it's up to you to keep up. Don't blame me if you can't.

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

Really? If you can't keep up with the discussion then you shouldn't be here making claims. Maybe you should go back and re-evaluate your position, with all this new updated information I'm kindly giving you for nothing?
I expect a star from you for the help..

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

Really? Regardless you are debating me at the mo, not the 'truth movement' as you call it. This just shows you really don't pay attention to what anyone says, and just assume we all believe the same thing. I'm tired of these generic arguments from you guys that ignore what is really being said for generalizations you either make up, get from damned fool conspiracy websites, or the MSM.

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

Really? Another claim from the fantasy world of hooper. If no one is questioning the OS why are you here wasting your time?

reply to post by ANOK

I didn't say it would have no effect, but you want it to be more than an effect, you want it to have caused the complete global failure of the whole 110 story tower. Big difference.

No, I am saying that the little gnomes that planted the explosives did so well that even crashing a huge plane into the building would not have effected their ability to initiate exactly as planned.

Who said they wired the building? I didn't. All I try to show is that there had to be another energy source acting on the towers, because its impossible for them to have completely collapsed themselves with no mass left in their footprints.

You're right, when you're only limited to your own imagination anything is possible! Energy source! Of course! Just for the record now, you're saying none of the WTC towers fell into their own footprints? So if I look at photos from 9/11 I'll see a big empty space where the foundations were?

Physics trumps your incredibility.

Which is ironic since I am incredulous about your version of physics.

LOL you keep saying this, but you have yet to show how my concept of physics is wrong. It's easy to say this, but not so easy to actually prove is it? Otherwise you would have by now instead of this reply.

Prove what? You keeping saying nonsense like this was in its footprint and this wasn't and its all just your opinion and imagination!

Again you pick on a word instead of addressing the physics.

Because you are describing your physics - with words - and yet we shouldn't be picky about the words you use. Wow.

Yes any implosion collapse is designed to land most of the building in its footprint. If I say ALL if it you'll only pick on the small amount of debris that rolled outside of the footprint. If the outer walls are on top of the rest of collapsed building then what would you call it? That is the definition of 'in its own footprint'. There is no other way a building can have its outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building, regardless of fire, free-fall speed, or damage to one side.

We won't bother mentioning that the building was surrounded by other buildings that contained the debris. Ok, fine. Lets just keep ignoring the obvious. Thats much easier.

You can not account for the walls being on top of the collapsed building. Nothing you claim addresses this problem.

The building fell down because supporting systems INSIDE the building failed. If you can't figure that out then I doubt if you can manage a doorknob.

Don't you even know the OS you so desperately support?

So you just accept everything the government says?

It doesn't keep changing, it's been that way since 9/11. How can it change lol, only the OS has changed.
Anyway ongoing research is bound to change when new information becomes available, it's up to you to keep up. Don't blame me if you can't.

Thats a good one - "new information"! Limited only by your own imagination!

Really? If you can't keep up with the discussion then you shouldn't be here making claims. Maybe you should go back and re-evaluate your position, with all this new updated information I'm kindly giving you for nothing?

Well worth what I paid for it!

Really? Regardless you are debating me at the mo, not the 'truth movement' as you call it. This just shows you really don't pay attention to what anyone says, and just assume we all believe the same thing. I'm tired of these generic arguments from you guys that ignore what is really being said for generalizations you either make up, get from damned fool conspiracy websites, or the MSM.

Well, first you accuse me of being to picky, now I am being accused of not paying attention. Or am I guilty of not paying attention in too much detail. Kind of like being almost symmetrically falling mostly in its own foortprint.

Really? Another claim from the fantasy world of hooper. If no one is questioning the OS why are you here wasting your time?

Its just like wanting to see an endangered species, you sometime just got to go to the zoo.

Originally posted by Yankee451
But how about those wing tips? Are they larger or smaller caliber?

The length of the wings does not add anything structurally significant enough to greatly increase the level of damage. However, as long as you mention it, the wings on a 767, as it’s a widebody, are much thicker then those of a narrowbody 707, mainly where it attaches to the fuselage.

However...
This is all a moot point, as this entire theory of the buildings withstanding a 707 was nothing more then a theory by engineers. You know, engineers, the guys who stated that the titanic was unsinkable:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/22b94364e975.jpg[/atsimg]
And that hydrogen was a stable gas to use in dirigibles:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eb1bba5c9c73.jpg[/atsimg]
We all know that engineers never make mistakes:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0dabe9f773f9.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by defcon5


I'm under the impression both the Titanic and the Hindenburg were sabotaged, making your examples appropriate.

Can you explain how engineers could create a wing tip that can slice from left to right, when it should be slicing from right to left, presuming it can slice at all?

The damage doesn't fit the story...so which is wrong, the NIST photo, or the story?

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

Originally posted by Yankee451
I'm under the impression both the Titanic and the Hindenburg were sabotaged, making your examples appropriate.

The Titanic was label “Unsinkable” period, not “Unsinkable except in the case of sabotage”. Besides how does one sabotage a ship via an iceberg? Are you claiming that someone else was out there towing said iceberg into the path of the ship?

As to the Hindenberg, whether it be via sabotage or not hydrogen was an unstable gas that was chosen as a lifting agent. Whatever made it catch fire is moot, as engineers should have known the dangers of using that gas to begin with.

So both points are valid is showing that engineers make stupid mistakes, or worse yet, sometimes skew the results to calm public fears about certain projects.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Can you explain how engineers could create a wing tip that can slice from left to right, when it should be slicing from right to left, presuming it can slice at all?

Sorry, I cannot make heads or tails of what your getting at here.

Originally posted by defcon5
Sorry, I cannot make heads or tails of what your getting at here.

The damage in the NIST report shows the gash caused by the left wing tip. Note the direction of the damage. What could cause this outside-in slicing, when a 35 degree swept back wing would strike from the fuselage-out?

Regardless, whatever it is that struck from the left, still didn't break all the columns, it only dented some of them.

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

This is all a moot point, as this entire theory of the buildings withstanding a 707 was nothing more then a theory by engineers. You know, engineers, the guys who stated that the titanic was unsinkable:

There is a big difference between a moving vessel (such as the Titanic or the Hindenberg) and a stationary building. The analogy is ludicrous.

As for engineers making mistakes, were any engineers sued due to the collapse of the WTC buildings? So, since it is your belief that they screwed up royally in designing the WTC buildings, why was no legal action brought against the engineers, architects, general contractors, etc. of the buildings by the victims' families?

Did the parties who paid settlements to the victim families subrogate against the engineers who allegedly made these fatal mistakes? If not, why haven't they paid for these mistakes that you claim they made? You know, the USA is the most litigious nation on earth where a plaintiff will file a lawsuit over spilled hot coffee and receive a settlement.

Were any other skyscrapers in the United States inspected, modified or razed because they too may not be safe because of alleged "engineering mistakes"? Or are building safety officials just throwing caution to the wind, by failing to correct potential "engineering mistakes" in other buildings? If the latter were the case, I you assure that no insurance carrier on this earth would provide them with a policy and they would have to vacate the building and close their doors immediately.

Anybody can come up with lame analogies and excuses like the Titanic and engineering mistakes. The reality is, when you dig a little deeper, these excuses expose themselves for what they are, complete hogwash which have been "engineered" to protect the official fairy tale.

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.

Above is yet another statement which makes absolutely no sense. First of all, the second plane (if in fact it was a plane) which struck the South Tower did not impact near the elevator shaft, so your statement obviously cannot apply to the South Tower.

Secondly, if the elevator cables were severed in the North Tower, wouldn't the elevator cars drop to the bottom almost immediately? How would the cars be set on fire if they dropped to the bottom due to the severing of the cables?

Thirdly, are you implying that all these fire engulfed elevator cars in the North Tower were positioned near or on the same floors to be set on fire. What are the chances of all these elevator cars just hanging around the same floors at 8:46 AM?

Looks like somebody has been watching too many Die Hard movies, or better yet, expects us to be watching these movies and believe the sensationalist unrealistic crap we see in them.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Nothing ludicrous about it. The argument is not about if the towers were built correctly, its about untrue claims as to what they could withstand. The same as there were untrue statements made about what the titanic was engineered to withstand.

My point is that what some engineer may think something might withstand is not a black and white calculation, especially when there is no precedent for it happening in the past, and will therefore frequently be in error. Truthers who harp on this argument seem to believe that we are capable of creating things that are in some way indestructible, yet nothing can be further from the truth. Nothing built by man is indestructible.

Also if you read that actual comments made by the construction engineers there was concern over the amount of fuel, and the fire that would ensue after such a collision. In that aspect they were correct, the collision did not bring down the towers but rather the resulting fires on top of the collision damage.

reply to post by Yankee451


I am still not quite understanding what you mean, but I am guessing you mean the stuff at the extreme end of the wingtip were it looks like it is pulled to the right side of the picture. Most likely the end of the wing, which is the weakest and the most flexible section, partly severed then the remaining spar bent and pulled in the tips with the rest of the wing root.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I am still not quite understanding what you mean, but I am guessing you mean the stuff at the extreme end of the wingtip were it looks like it is pulled to the right side of the picture. Most likely the end of the wing, which is the weakest and the most flexible section, partly severed then the remaining spar bent and pulled in the tips with the rest of the wing root.

So you're saying the wing tip ("weakest and most flexible") snapped forward and bent steel beams to the right? That's not what we saw on the TeeVee.

reply to post by Yankee451

So you're saying the wing tip ("weakest and most flexible") snapped forward and bent steel beams to the right? That's not what we saw on the TeeVee.

That's what I saw. I don't know about your description of "snapped forward", that's your word choice you have to live with that. But the wings of the plane penetrated the building exterior in a forward motion. I didn't observe any "snapping forward".

reply to post by hooper


That's what you saw? This is the North Tower we're talking about...you're saying you saw the wing tip do that on the TeeVee, or are you just recounting your fake sister again?

reply to post by Yankee451


Whats with TeeVee? You trying to put on some airs? Pretending to be above all us common folk? You're too smart, you know its all CGI disinfo on the tube, huh?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by hooper

 

That's what you saw? This is the North Tower we're talking about...you're saying you saw the wing tip do that on the TeeVee, or are you just recounting your fake sister again?

I hope you realize that there's not a dime worth of differene between you thinking every thing on "teevee" is being faked just to keep you from the real "truth" and the guy who tells the cops that he cut up the neighbors dog with a meat cleaver because the voices he heard on the 'teevee".

Originally posted by Yankee451
So you're saying the wing tip ("weakest and most flexible") snapped forward and bent steel beams to the right? That's not what we saw on the TeeVee.

No, I am saying it snapped backwards and dragged debris in toward the larger hole made by the more substantial part of the wing root as it was pulled through.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Whats with TeeVee?

You're just jealous you didn't use it first.

You trying to put on some airs? Pretending to be above all us common folk?

Please don't blame your inferiority complex on me; I'm sure it's been around you longer than I have. "Common folk" is mine, get your own writer.

You're too smart, you know its all CGI disinfo on the tube, huh?

After 911, we all have good reason to doubt everything shown on the TeeVee. You didn't think the government really gave a rats patootie about saving bandwidth when they were willing to spend billions to get everyone a digital TeeVee signal, did you?

Pull the other one.

Originally posted by hooper

I hope you realize that there's not a dime worth of differene between you thinking every thing on "teevee" is being faked just to keep you from the real "truth" and the guy who tells the cops that he cut up the neighbors dog with a meat cleaver because the voices he heard on the 'teevee".

Man, that's some kinda analogy...want to talk about that? Might want to start your own thread. Do you hear voices from the Television even when it's not on?

Do the voices tell you that if you just go to work and pay your taxes that the government will take care of you?

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by Yankee451
So you're saying the wing tip ("weakest and most flexible") snapped forward and bent steel beams to the right? That's not what we saw on the TeeVee.

No, I am saying it snapped backwards and dragged debris in toward the larger hole made by the more substantial part of the wing root as it was pulled through.

Why would you expect a wing root to survive long enough to drag the wing with it, and how can the flimsy aluminum foil of the wing tip make such pronounced dents in the much denser, thicker steel? Didn't it lose its momentum when it hit the side of the building?

According to the NIST, this is the damage caused. If the wing was dragged through the center hole, ala the folding wings of the Pentagon, how do they explain the damage below? They list the columns as severed, not dented as the wings dragged through...severed. They're not all severed, are they? How could the wings not sever that side, yet still wreak havoc inside the building?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c7f373e43c22.jpg[/atsimg]

How did they miss this substantial damage to the East side?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/466f1e00ff9d.jpg[/atsimg]

It's a mystery!