View article without comments
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767, SO WHY DIDN'T IT?
by MAD MAX
Saturday, Jul. 19, 2003 at 11:37 AM
In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT
OF A BOEING 767, SO WHY DIDN'T IT?
Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.
Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.
Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.
To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.
Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.
Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one). Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.
See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.
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.
Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
And, 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.
To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see that at cruise speed, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
So what can be said about the actual impacts?
The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 has been estimated to be 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 has been estimated to be 590 mph = 865 ft/s.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.
Note that the speed of a projectile determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and the damage localized. This effect is
illustrated in the above graphic from the simulation of the crash of a Boeing 747 (maximum takeoff weight 875,000 lb, unloaded weight 670,200 lb, fuel capacity 57,285 gallons) with a steel framed building.
We are told that the "hijackers" wanted to cause maximum death and destruction, then why didn't they hijack Boeing 747s? Boeing 747s weigh more than twice as much, they can carry more than twice the fuel and travel faster than the Boeing 767. Consequently, Boeing 747s would have caused much more death and destruction than the 767s.
Also, why did the hijackers choose to hijack aircraft leaving Boston, when they could have just as easily hijacked aircraft from one of the New York city airports (LaGuardia, Newark or JFK). Hijacking aircraft from Boston, meant that they had to deviate from their designated routes, while still a long way from Manhattan. Of course, as is usual, all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as the aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes. Not only that, the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly intercept them before they reached their target (and would have assuredly shoot down the second 767, after seeing what happened to the first).
It is often claimed that the WTC was designed only to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at one of the nearby airports, and that since such aircraft would be low on fuel, only small jet fuel fires were envisaged. However, this is an obvious lie. Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are potentially fully laden with fuel.
Since the WTC towers were designed to handle extreme wind loading (140 mph hurricane force winds) they would survive the impact of a Boeing 707 (even one that was traveling at full speed) without adding any extra features to the design (above those already necessary to handle the wind loading). All that the designers would have to consider, is effect of a jet fuel fire from a fully fueled jet that crashed into one of the towers shortly after taking off from one of the local airports.
Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the much larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
|
Mad Max
by More on the WTC HOAX.
Saturday, Jul. 19, 2003 at 11:38 AM
More on the WTC HOAX.
What is your point?
by JohnQ
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 3:36 AM
Don't assume that everyone comes to the same conclusions....
a 707 is not a 767....Even your heading is a lie.
You state that the buildings were designed to withstand an impact and then you begin by saying that someone conducted a study after completion.
Not the same thing.
And lastly, what is your point? What statement are you trying to make?
Let me know when you tackle the "man on the moon" lie.
Grossly inaccurate
by jbusch
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 4:42 AM
The computer simulation you show is nowhere close to the situation at WTC. The columns for both towers were spaced very tightly together, and were very slender- that is what gave the building its distinctive verticality, and made the structure lighter and more economical than traditional steel cage structures.
The graphic shows a completely different type of structure, with large steel columns set wide apart- the two are not comparable.
Your postings put the "anal" in analysis, and the "ass" in assumption.
who needs hijackers?
by more on the WTC hoax
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 7:04 AM
Were the 9-11 planes remotely controlled?
http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html
jbusch
by even more on WTC
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 7:15 AM
Who said anything about planes? Those were computer projections superimposed on the video feed that was controlled by the Mossad from the basement of the Pentagon (which also was not "hit by a plane" - the damage was all a stage set- how else could it be "rebuilt" so fast...)
All those "witnesses" are working for the CIA. It has already been proved that planes could not destroy the towers- so why bother with them...? There is no conclusive "proof" that any planes were involved in the attack. Where's the "link" that proves there were planes?
it was all a hallucination
by jbusch finally is talking sense
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 7:20 AM
Exactly! No you are starting to talk sense....the whole thing was a Jerry Bruckheimer production. A complete consensual hallucination.
jbusch as usual is dribbling stupidity.
by jbusch as usual is dribbling stupidity.
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 10:15 AM
The columns for both towers were spaced very tightly together, and were very slender- that is what gave the building its distinctive verticality
jbusch as usual is dribbling stupidity. He should close his mouth while he just looks a fool.
The model models the central core.
The model ignores the perimeter columns even though they would have provided massive protection for the core.
The simulation models the core of the WTC well. However, note that the WTC core consisted of a grid, eight columns wide and six columns deep, as opposed to the model which was, six columns wide and three columns deep
Better than..
by jbusch
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 11:28 AM
Better to dribble it once in a while than to spew it like a firehose constantly. Whoever you are, if you buy into this whole conspiracy then your opinions are beneath contempt anyway. The entire thing is a fantasy for lunatic anti-semites who have nothing better to do than convince themselves that the entire world was fooled by an evil Jewish plot- except for a small group of pimpled Leftists who swap meaninglyss website mis-information and imagine they are important.
jbusch is a RACIST prick.
by jbusch is a RACIST prick.
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 12:44 PM
jbusch: you are a RACIST prick.
jbusch is quite willing to claim that Arabs did 9-11.
jbusch cannot list any non-contestable evidence that there was a single Arab hijacker on the planes.
Go on JERK. List your evidence that the hijackers were Arab.
jbusch cannot stand that claim that Jews did 9-11.
There is plenty of evidence that Arab "identities" have been framed for 9-11. Who would want to frame the Arabs. Yes Jews, with their insane support for Israel.
jbusch is a RACIST prick.
Me and millions of others
by jbusch
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 12:54 PM
Oooh, forgive me...I am suddenly a racist just because I believe (along with hundreds of millions of other people world-wide) what has been endlessly repeated on news broadcasts in every country, on every continent but Antarctica, in every language every spoken that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudia Arabia, and the other 4 came from other Middle East countries.
AMERICAN AIRLINES #77
BOEING 757
1) Khalid Al-Midhar -- Possible residence (s): Los Angeles, California and New York, New York; Visa Status: B-1 Visa, but B-2 Visa had expired.
2) Majed Moqed -- No information available.
3) Nawaq Alhamzi -- Possible residence (s): Fort Lee, New Jersey and Wayne, New Jersey and Los Angeles, California.
4) Salem Alhamzi -- Possible residence (s): Fort Lee, New Jersey, and Wayne, New Jersey.
5) Hani Hanjour -- Possible residence (s): Phoenix, Arizona and San Diego, California. Believed to be a pilot.
AMERICAN AIRLINES #11
BOEING 767
7:45 a.m. departed Boston for Los Angeles
8:45 a.m. crashed into North Tower of the World Trade Center
1) Satam Al Suqami -- Date of birth used: June 28, 1976; Last known address: United Arab Emirates.
2) Waleed M. Alshehri -- Dates of birth used: September 13, 1974/ January 1, 1976/ March 3, 1976/ July 8, 1977/ December 20, 1978/ May 11, 1979/ November 5, 1979; Possible residence (s): Hollywood, Florida/ Orlando, Florida/ Daytona Beach, Florida; Believed to be a pilot.
3) Wail Alshehri -- Date of birth used: July 31, 1973; Possible residence (s): Hollywood, Florida, and Newton, Massachusetts; Believed to be a pilot.
4) Mohamed Atta -- Date of birth used: September 1, 1968; Possible residence (s): Hollywood, Florida/ Coral Springs, Florida/ Hamburg, Germany; Believed to be a pilot.
5) Abdulaziz Alomari -- Dates of birth used: December 24, 1972 and May 28, 1979; Possible residence: Hollywood, Florida; Believed to be a pilot.
UNITED AIRLINES #175
BOEING 767
7:58 a.m. departed Boston for Los Angeles
9:05 a.m. crashed into South Tower of the World Trade Center
1) Marwan Al-Shehhi -- Date of birth used: May 9, 1978; Possible residence: Hollywood, Florida; Visa Status: B-2 Visa; Believed to be a pilot.
2) Fayez Ahmed -- Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
3) Ahmed Alghamdi -- Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
4) Hamza Alghamdi -- Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
5) Mohald Alshehri -- Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
UNITED AIRLINES #93
BOEING 757
8:01 a.m. departed Newark, New Jersey, for San Francisco
10:10 a.m. crashed in Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania
1) Saeed Alghamdi -- Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
2) Ahmed Alhaznawi -- Date of birth used: October 11, 1980; Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
3) Ahmed Alnami -- Possible residence: Delray Beach, Florida.
4) Ziad Jarrahi -- Believed to be a pilot.
But none of this really happened, huh? There were no planes, there were no pilots- it was all the JEWS and their evil plot to take over the world.
A
by jbusch you idiot.
Monday, Jul. 21, 2003 at 1:56 PM
jbusch: Prove they were on the planes, you jerk
All you can do is repeat obvious lies. What a jerk.
Explain why many of those you refer to have been interviewed by various media outlets by the BBC, CNN, etc
http://indyhawaii.org/news/2003/07/3246.php
The fact that 6 or 7 are still alive is no problem to a THICKO like you. Dumb jerk.
Cant prove a negative
by Jerk
Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 3:47 AM
Let's see, I have my personal copy of all the flight records for American Airlines here somewhere.....let's see... gosh, must have misplaced them. I guess you win.
Too bad none of the legitimate news services in the country, or the world has picked up this story. Sounds like it will be quite a scandal when John Smith muslim turns up alive.
Or maybe you are the fool (what am I saying, maybe..!) Those "survivors" you speak of are surely Saudi agents, posing as the "attackers" to sway cretins and disloyal fuck stains who go for that kind of thing.
A
by The reports were from MAJOR news services
Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 10:19 AM
Too bad none of the legitimate news services in the country, or the world has picked up this story
Some stupid IDIOTS use hawaii.indymedia.org, like the "thing" that made the above comment.
Read the link http://indyhawaii.org/news/2003/07/3246.php you CRETIN.
The reports were from MAJOR news services like the BBC, CNN, the Independent, the Telegraph, ABC and the Daily Trust.
You CRETIN.
this is true
by occult reVisionist
Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 12:15 PM
I am amazed at the state of denial americans are in. Following is one of the stories about "hijackers" being alive and well, from BBC. This should have been a HUGE story in the US, but there was absolutely no coverage. Bizarre. It must mean at the very least that the hijackers (if there were hijackers) used false identities. But it calls into question the whole story. I would not believe anything from the official story at this point. It would be illogical to assume anything. The hijackers could have been Israelis or the planes could have been guided by remote control, a technology that was pioneered by the Wright brothers and used in WWI, WWII, and is presently feasible--Global Hawk and the drones used in Afghanistan. Warren Buffet is a major investor in UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) and he was at some fundraising event at Offutt AFB on the morning of 9-11. That is beyond coincidence.
The BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.
His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.
Hijacking suspects
Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi
Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami
Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour
Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi
Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.
He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.
But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.
Mistaken identity
Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports.
Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver'
He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.
Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News.
The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says.
Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi.
Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive
He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.
And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive.
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.
Proof
by circus dog
Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 1:57 PM
Well, that proves it- if they are not who the FBI orginally suspected from the passenger list, then the only logical conclusion is that the JEWS did it.
israelis not jews
by circusdog is an antisemite
Tuesday, Jul. 22, 2003 at 7:17 PM
Your conclusion is not logical at all. It would be reasonable to conclude that israelis had something to do with it, since 5 israelis were found cheering the burning towers and an israeli spy ring was busted around the time of 9-11 (as revealed by Carl Cameron) on Fox News. Israel has a history of doing false-flag operations, so 9-11 is within their capability. But don't confuse jews with israel. Not all jews are evil terrorists. Israel has hijacked the great religion of Judaism for its political ends. I myself am a student of the Kabbala yet I despise the Israeli Nazis who murder Palestinians and smuggle drugs into our country. OK, the ecstasy is Ok but the coke sucks.
also...
by also
Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 10:30 AM
it might be fair to mention that environmental groups wouldn't let people build the trade center as strong as it was, there was somekind of material (i forget the name) that was supposed to protect better against fire, but environmental groups for god-knows-what reason wouldnt let us use it, so why not put some of the blame on them too?
asbestos fireproofing
by we are doing asbestos we can
Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 12:15 PM
You are probably talking about asbestos which is required by law to be sprayed on structural beams in buildings to protect them from heat and fire. Allegedly, the lower floors of the WTC had asbestos, but for some reason the upper floors did not. But it did not matter that much, as the impact of the plane blew off the asbestos from the beams on the impact-level floors. Environmentalists had nothing to do with the lack of asbestos on the upper floors. It was probably a contractor who charged for it and didn't actually install it, which is fraud I guess.
WWW
by trusses survive better without the asbestos.
Thursday, Jul. 24, 2003 at 1:33 PM
It turns out the trusses survive better without the asbestos.
(4) Even if the fire-rated suspended ceilings and spray on fire-protection from the trusses was removed by the impacts and the trusses were heated till they had lost most of their room temperature strength, we know from the Cardington tests and real fires like Broadgate, that the relatively cold concrete slab will supply strength to the structural system, and collapse will not occur. Remember, that at Broadgate and Cardington, the beams/trusses were not fire-protected.
.............................
One of the conclusions derived from the Cardington tests, was that fire protection for the beams (trusses) was not necessary (in a composite steel structure).
From http://indyhawaii.org/news/2003/07/3279.php
Unions steal both ways
by asbestos installer
Friday, Jul. 25, 2003 at 2:33 AM
New York asbestos removal contractors and Union bosses were notorious for their mob contacts. The scam was to install the asbestos poorly, or report an airborne asbestos condition (especially in a school, where fellow union thugs can take a cut) and then get paid again to remove the asbestos. The beauty part was that the asbestos could be dumped illegally, and only licensed, union contractors would be allowed to perform the "clean-up".
Asbestos can be bad stuff- no doubt- but there is more to the fear of it than environmentalists tell.
Cardigan tests not fair comparison
by truss expert
Friday, Jul. 25, 2003 at 2:39 AM
The Cardigan tested only the trusses themselves. The WTC trusses failed at the wall connections. The bottom chord of the steel trusses does not benefit from the thermal mass of the concrete slab connected to the top chord. When the bottom chord expands under heat, it tends to buckle in the unrestrained direction- that is side-to-side. If the connection to the walls is sufficiently strong, this does not necessarily lead to catastrophic failure. If the wall-to-truss connection is not sufficient to resist the lateral twist of the truss, then the connection will shear off, and the end of the truss will fall. That is the accepted theory for the WTC tower collapse.
Z
by IQ lower that bushs (so you are damn THICK)
Friday, Jul. 25, 2003 at 11:42 AM
The Cardigan tested only the trusses themselves
What a lying CRETIN. BY the way, can't you even copy correctly, ya MORON.
The tests were at Cardington (not Cardigan) and the whole point of them was to test the composite trusses/slab in a real eight story building.
Youre a LYING JERK, and a complete DORK. IQ lower that bushs (so you are pretty damn THICK).
Everybody knows
by lying jerk
Friday, Jul. 25, 2003 at 12:56 PM
Every good post-modernist knows there is no truth, only constructed realities.
The 911 story is an obvious fabrication.
by The 911 story is an obvious fabrication.
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003 at 11:03 AM
The 911 story is an obvious fabrication.
I AGREE.
by Jack
Sunday, Sep. 14, 2003 at 9:11 AM
<<<The 911 story is an obvious fabrication.>>>
I AGREE.
bogus from the start
by Engineer
Monday, Sep. 15, 2003 at 10:36 AM
this story is a joke from the beginning. The 707 does not fly at "600 mph" so why in the hell would Robertson have designed it withstand that impact? He didn't. It was assumed that a plane might hit the buildings lost in a fog, on slow final approach- not accellerating with a full load of fuel.
You idiots need to get a life. Suicidal, evil Islamic thugs brought the towers down- not the Jews.
Assholes.
Speaking of assholes - ie you.
by Speaking of assholes - ie you.
Wednesday, Sep. 17, 2003 at 12:06 PM
Speaking of assholes - ie you.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
Proving my point
by get a life
Thursday, Sep. 18, 2003 at 6:09 AM
At altitude, maybe - not coming in for a landing at LaGuardia or JFK. But none of that matters to you, I am sure. You are just another one of the Jew-hating troglodytes who preen and stroke each other on this contemptible site, convinced that they alone know the evil truth that Sept. 11th was an inside job by the Bush administration and the Jews.
I was wrong, you are not an asshole. Assholes cant help it that they are full of shit. You are worse.
To "get a life"
by Bush Admirer
Saturday, Sep. 20, 2003 at 3:38 AM
Way to go, "get a life." Whenever we asinine conservatives (pardon the redundancy) have no valid argument, we can always resort to calling those on the other side "Jew-hating troglodytes" without substantiation. It really shows how desparate we are to change the subject. Great job!!!
Do some reading
by Bush tolerator
Tuesday, Sep. 23, 2003 at 2:39 AM
Just peruse a few of the posts on this site to get the flavor of where you are. This very thread postulates that the "Bush cabal" plotted the destruction of the WTC, and that its Jewish owner wired the towers with explosives for the insurance. You don't much more paranoid or jew-hating than that.
Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
Jewish owner wired the towers with explosives
by Jewish owner wired the towers with explosives
Saturday, Feb. 28, 2004 at 12:27 PM
The "Bush cabal" plotted the destruction of the WTC, and that its Jewish owner wired the towers with explosives for the insurance.
YEAP, SURE DID.
If you want my opinion...
by Keith Crowder
Thursday, Apr. 15, 2004 at 2:53 PM
miggedo7@yahoo.com
I have seen enough photos of this event to conlcude that it was set-up from the word GO.
If any believes that 12 people from a another country
who dont even look American, flew planes into our buildings and THATS what caused them to collapse, you blind.
Wouldnt the FAA notice four planes that are "off course"?
Wouldnt it make sense to crash the planes at the bottom of a tall building?
How come the President of the United States, sat and took photos with the school children, instead of taking action right away?
Why?
They create problems.....then create solution......
you forgot to subtract!
by dfb
Friday, May. 21, 2004 at 10:50 AM
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257.php
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/update/index.php
you may have seen the math by mad max on fortunecity or elsewhere, but one of our propaganda snipers on patrol today caught an error in the equation as we are triple checking all math prior to releasing this paper next week - the following comment was posted so that nerdcities/madmax can rerun their calculations - if anyone can verify details from a library about an early 70s ny times article that in fact includes the 707 600mph assessment WTC chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, please forward those specifics to truth-now.com
you forgot to subtract!
the feds specifically say the building was designed to take a 707 hit, etc. - that much is fed speak - so unless the feds are suddenly retracting this it should stand as a baseline
the math here looks good except one piece of logic wasn't considered - that the max takeoff weight includes a fully loaded gas tank and that the feds say that the aircraft that hit the towers on 911 only had 10k gallons onboard which makes absolute sense for the flights they were allegedly embarking on - what was not included in the calculation was the weight of either 767 or 707 aircraft with only 10,000 gallons which makes both planes considerably lighter - you can do the math yourself, get our newest paper, or simply trust we have done due diligence to verify this:
for a 767, max gallons 23980 -10,000 gallons at time of impact = 13,980 gallons = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to max takeoff weight so 395,000 - 94,459 = 300,541 pounds max weight for a 767 at time of impact with tower if taking off from nearby airport
for a 707, max gallons 23000 -10,000 gallons at time of impact = 13,000 gallons = 87,838 pounds not onboard or contributing to max takeoff weight so 336,000 - 87,838 = 248,162 pounds max weight for a 707 at time of impact with tower if taking off from nearby airport
* a plane cannot fly/takeoff/land without fuel, so "max takeoff weight" is logically one that is fully loaded with fuel (if not max passengers too) and does not equate "gross weight" of aircraft
** consider this excerpt from a nasa site that confirms the weight of a grounded 707: "The C-141 has a gross weight of about 317 000 pounds, which places it in the same size class as the Boeing 707-320B" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-7.htm)
truth-now.com
yet another subtraction missing
by dfb
Wednesday, Sep. 08, 2004 at 9:48 AM
this is the latest update to all math in relation to aircraft weight at time of impact...
fema masonry experts write:
1.5.1 Building Codes
...The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport;
truth-now.com comments:
to believe this is to believe engineers are stupid white men when we know they are successful math nerds that have found financial success due to their lifelong tendency to over-consider every worst case possibility in their creations even if the law/codes won't - these guys due it because they have to - out of pure brain prowess pride and ego reputation - super nerds who engineer steel/masonry do not forget to consider that aircrafts can't fly without fuel or aircraft taking off from nearby airports at maximum speeds nor would engineering nerds forget that an average fuel load of a transcontinental flight at takeoff would require at least 10,000 gallons of fuel and that those 10,000 gallons equate 67,568 pounds that must be calculated into the overall weight/mass and into the energy equation related to impact and absorption, etc.- these super nerd super engineers designed the world's tallest towers (at the time) to stand tall near a major airport for a good century and considered the rapid evolution of aircraft size, speed - these towers were most certainly designed to absorb the full impact force/weight of a 707 fully loaded with fuel for a transcontinental flight rushing along at max takeoff speeds - we know that the 707 fully loaded weighs in at 336,000 and the 767 with 10,000 gallons weighs only 300,541 at time of impact with a tower designed to absorb 36,000 more pounds flying at it at 100mph faster so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that even if these two aircraft were traveling at the exact same speed that the 767 with only a 10,000 gallon payload will not generate anywhere near the same force and thus is expected to be absorbed by these world's greatest masonic towers
madmax/fortunecity/anonymous guardian author alleges:
under normal conditions with both aircraft carrying only 10,000 gallons of fuel, a 767 smashing into a building would produce 10% less energy than would a 707
we're taking the madmax assessments head-on and declaring his calculations preliminary and incomplete, but give praise for this anonymous work which inspired ours more than any other egotistical researcher/author on the 911 investigation circuit - we understand that it takes various fresh passes at each problem to actually evolve to the next relevant root layer not obvious in the first pass due to context and perhaps excitement - we must compare instead the total loaded weight of a fully loaded 707 on takeoff vs. a partially loaded 767 on 911
kerosene/jet-A fuel weighs 50.544 pounds per cubic foot
10,000 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 67,567.5 pounds
13,980 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to takeoff weight
a boeing 767-200ER, has a max takeoff weight* of about 395,000 pounds including a max 23,980 gallons but because this case involves only 10,000 gallons at time of impact (13,980 gallons = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to max takeoff weight) we must subtract the 94,459 pounds of fuel not onboard from max takeoff weight = 395,000 - 94,459 = 300,541 pounds max weight of the boeing 767 at time of impact with a WTC tower | normal cruise speed 530 mph = 777 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
a boeing 707-320B, has a gross weight of about 317,000 pounds + can carry a max 23,000 gallons = max takeoff weight* of 336,000 pounds max weight for a 707 if taking off from nearby airport | normal cruise speed 607 mph = 890 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
* a plane cannot fly/takeoff/land without fuel, so "max takeoff weight" is logically an aircraft's total weight fully loaded with fuel (perhaps max passengers too) which appears to be its "gross weight of aircraft" plus live load and occupancy
** consider this excerpt from a nasa site that confirms the weight of a grounded 707: "The C-141 has a gross weight of about 317 000 pounds, which places it in the same size class as the Boeing 707-320B" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-7.htm)
www.truth-now.com/download
the 757 is lighter and slower than 707
by trruth-now.com
Wednesday, Sep. 08, 2004 at 9:53 AM
this is the latest update to all math in relation to aircraft weight at time of impact...
fema masonry experts write:
1.5.1 Building Codes
...The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport;
truth-now.com comments:
to believe this is to believe engineers are stupid white men when we know they are successful math nerds that have found financial success due to their lifelong tendency to over-consider every worst case possibility in their creations even if the law/codes won't - these guys due it because they have to - out of pure brain prowess pride and ego reputation - super nerds who engineer steel/masonry do not forget to consider that aircrafts can't fly without fuel or aircraft taking off from nearby airports at maximum speeds nor would engineering nerds forget that an average fuel load of a transcontinental flight at takeoff would require at least 10,000 gallons of fuel and that those 10,000 gallons equate 67,568 pounds that must be calculated into the overall weight/mass and into the energy equation related to impact and absorption, etc.- these super nerd super engineers designed the world's tallest towers (at the time) to stand tall near a major airport for a good century and considered the rapid evolution of aircraft size, speed - these towers were most certainly designed to absorb the full impact force/weight of a 707 fully loaded with fuel for a transcontinental flight rushing along at max takeoff speeds - we know that the 707 fully loaded weighs in at 336,000 and the 767 with 10,000 gallons weighs only 300,541 at time of impact with a tower designed to absorb 36,000 more pounds flying at it at 100mph faster so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that even if these two aircraft were traveling at the exact same speed that the 767 with only a 10,000 gallon payload will not generate anywhere near the same force and thus is expected to be absorbed by these world's greatest masonic towers
madmax/fortunecity/anonymous guardian author alleges:
under normal conditions with both aircraft carrying only 10,000 gallons of fuel, a 767 smashing into a building would produce 10% less energy than would a 707
we're taking the madmax assessments head-on and declaring his calculations preliminary and incomplete, but give praise for this anonymous work which inspired ours more than any other egotistical researcher/author on the 911 investigation circuit - we understand that it takes various fresh passes at each problem to actually evolve to the next relevant root layer not obvious in the first pass due to context and perhaps excitement - we must compare instead the total loaded weight of a fully loaded 707 on takeoff vs. a partially loaded 767 on 911
kerosene/jet-A fuel weighs 50.544 pounds per cubic foot
10,000 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 67,567.5 pounds
13,980 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to takeoff weight
a boeing 767-200ER, has a max takeoff weight* of about 395,000 pounds including a max 23,980 gallons but because this case involves only 10,000 gallons at time of impact (13,980 gallons = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to max takeoff weight) we must subtract the 94,459 pounds of fuel not onboard from max takeoff weight = 395,000 - 94,459 = 300,541 pounds max weight of the boeing 767 at time of impact with a WTC tower | normal cruise speed 530 mph = 777 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
a boeing 707-320B, has a gross weight of about 317,000 pounds + can carry a max 23,000 gallons = max takeoff weight* of 336,000 pounds max weight for a 707 if taking off from nearby airport | normal cruise speed 607 mph = 890 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
* a plane cannot fly/takeoff/land without fuel, so "max takeoff weight" is logically an aircraft's total weight fully loaded with fuel (perhaps max passengers too) which appears to be its "gross weight of aircraft" plus live load and occupancy
** consider this excerpt from a nasa site that confirms the weight of a grounded 707: "The C-141 has a gross weight of about 317 000 pounds, which places it in the same size class as the Boeing 707-320B" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-7.htm)
www.truth-now.com/download
the 757 is lighter and slower than 707
by trruth-now.com
Wednesday, Sep. 08, 2004 at 9:54 AM
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257.php
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/update/index.php
this is the latest update to all math in relation to aircraft weight at time of impact:
fema masonry experts write:
1.5.1 Building Codes
...The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport;
truth-now.com comments:
to believe this is to believe engineers are stupid white men when we know they are successful math nerds that have found financial success due to their lifelong tendency to over-consider every worst case possibility in their creations even if the law/codes won't - these guys due it because they have to - out of pure brain prowess pride and ego reputation - super nerds who engineer steel/masonry do not forget to consider that aircrafts can't fly without fuel or aircraft taking off from nearby airports at maximum speeds nor would engineering nerds forget that an average fuel load of a transcontinental flight at takeoff would require at least 10,000 gallons of fuel and that those 10,000 gallons equate 67,568 pounds that must be calculated into the overall weight/mass and into the energy equation related to impact and absorption, etc.- these super nerd super engineers designed the world's tallest towers (at the time) to stand tall near a major airport for a good century and considered the rapid evolution of aircraft size, speed - these towers were most certainly designed to absorb the full impact force/weight of a 707 fully loaded with fuel for a transcontinental flight rushing along at max takeoff speeds - we know that the 707 fully loaded weighs in at 336,000 and the 767 with 10,000 gallons weighs only 300,541 at time of impact with a tower designed to absorb 36,000 more pounds flying at it at 100mph faster so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that even if these two aircraft were traveling at the exact same speed that the 767 with only a 10,000 gallon payload will not generate anywhere near the same force and thus is expected to be absorbed by these world's greatest masonic towers
madmax/fortunecity/anonymous guardian author alleges:
under normal conditions with both aircraft carrying only 10,000 gallons of fuel, a 767 smashing into a building would produce 10% less energy than would a 707
we're taking the madmax assessments head-on and declaring his calculations preliminary and incomplete, but give praise for this anonymous work which inspired ours more than any other egotistical researcher/author on the 911 investigation circuit - we understand that it takes various fresh passes at each problem to actually evolve to the next relevant root layer not obvious in the first pass due to context and perhaps excitement - we must compare instead the total loaded weight of a fully loaded 707 on takeoff vs. a partially loaded 767 on 911
kerosene/jet-A fuel weighs 50.544 pounds per cubic foot
10,000 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 67,567.5 pounds
13,980 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to takeoff weight
a boeing 767-200ER, has a max takeoff weight* of about 395,000 pounds including a max 23,980 gallons but because this case involves only 10,000 gallons at time of impact (13,980 gallons = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to max takeoff weight) we must subtract the 94,459 pounds of fuel not onboard from max takeoff weight = 395,000 - 94,459 = 300,541 pounds max weight of the boeing 767 at time of impact with a WTC tower | normal cruise speed 530 mph = 777 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
a boeing 707-320B, has a gross weight of about 317,000 pounds + can carry a max 23,000 gallons = max takeoff weight* of 336,000 pounds max weight for a 707 if taking off from nearby airport | normal cruise speed 607 mph = 890 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
* a plane cannot fly/takeoff/land without fuel, so "max takeoff weight" is logically an aircraft's total weight fully loaded with fuel (perhaps max passengers too) which appears to be its "gross weight of aircraft" plus live load and occupancy
** consider this excerpt from a nasa site that confirms the weight of a grounded 707: "The C-141 has a gross weight of about 317 000 pounds, which places it in the same size class as the Boeing 707-320B" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-7.htm)
www.truth-now.com/download
the 757 is lighter and slower than 707
by trruth-now.com
Wednesday, Sep. 08, 2004 at 9:56 AM
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257.php
this is the latest update to all math in relation to aircraft weight at time of impact:
fema masonry experts write:
1.5.1 Building Codes
...The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport;
truth-now.com comments:
to believe this is to believe engineers are stupid white men when we know they are successful math nerds that have found financial success due to their lifelong tendency to over-consider every worst case possibility in their creations even if the law/codes won't - these guys due it because they have to - out of pure brain prowess pride and ego reputation - super nerds who engineer steel/masonry do not forget to consider that aircrafts can't fly without fuel or aircraft taking off from nearby airports at maximum speeds nor would engineering nerds forget that an average fuel load of a transcontinental flight at takeoff would require at least 10,000 gallons of fuel and that those 10,000 gallons equate 67,568 pounds that must be calculated into the overall weight/mass and into the energy equation related to impact and absorption, etc.- these super nerd super engineers designed the world's tallest towers (at the time) to stand tall near a major airport for a good century and considered the rapid evolution of aircraft size, speed - these towers were most certainly designed to absorb the full impact force/weight of a 707 fully loaded with fuel for a transcontinental flight rushing along at max takeoff speeds - we know that the 707 fully loaded weighs in at 336,000 and the 767 with 10,000 gallons weighs only 300,541 at time of impact with a tower designed to absorb 36,000 more pounds flying at it at 100mph faster so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that even if these two aircraft were traveling at the exact same speed that the 767 with only a 10,000 gallon payload will not generate anywhere near the same force and thus is expected to be absorbed by these world's greatest masonic towers
madmax/fortunecity/anonymous guardian author alleges:
under normal conditions with both aircraft carrying only 10,000 gallons of fuel, a 767 smashing into a building would produce 10% less energy than would a 707
we're taking the madmax assessments head-on and declaring his calculations preliminary and incomplete, but give praise for this anonymous work which inspired ours more than any other egotistical researcher/author on the 911 investigation circuit - we understand that it takes various fresh passes at each problem to actually evolve to the next relevant root layer not obvious in the first pass due to context and perhaps excitement - we must compare instead the total loaded weight of a fully loaded 707 on takeoff vs. a partially loaded 767 on 911
kerosene/jet-A fuel weighs 50.544 pounds per cubic foot
10,000 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 67,567.5 pounds
13,980 gallons kerosene/jet-A fuel = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to takeoff weight
a boeing 767-200ER, has a max takeoff weight* of about 395,000 pounds including a max 23,980 gallons but because this case involves only 10,000 gallons at time of impact (13,980 gallons = 94,459 pounds not onboard or contributing to max takeoff weight) we must subtract the 94,459 pounds of fuel not onboard from max takeoff weight = 395,000 - 94,459 = 300,541 pounds max weight of the boeing 767 at time of impact with a WTC tower | normal cruise speed 530 mph = 777 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
a boeing 707-320B, has a gross weight of about 317,000 pounds + can carry a max 23,000 gallons = max takeoff weight* of 336,000 pounds max weight for a 707 if taking off from nearby airport | normal cruise speed 607 mph = 890 ft/second (we presume this figure to be correct and admittedly have not verified it)
* a plane cannot fly/takeoff/land without fuel, so "max takeoff weight" is logically an aircraft's total weight fully loaded with fuel (perhaps max passengers too) which appears to be its "gross weight of aircraft" plus live load and occupancy
** consider this excerpt from a nasa site that confirms the weight of a grounded 707: "The C-141 has a gross weight of about 317 000 pounds, which places it in the same size class as the Boeing 707-320B" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-468/ch13-7.htm)
www.truth-now.com/download
WTC Design
by SMR
Saturday, Apr. 01, 2006 at 2:25 AM
NY
Regarding the acccusation that the WTC towers being built to withstand the impact/fire of a Boeing 707 is a lie, think about it... how much more likely is it that a plane could lose it's way in the fog en route to the landing airport than for a plane taking off with all of it's headings and altitudes, vectors & such in order, and with better visibility?
The truth
by Mike B
Thursday, May. 11, 2006 at 6:00 PM
moreofmike@hotmail.com
Ok, your article is factual in terms of time and date. The ultimate reason the buildings collapsed were because of the intense fires caused by ignition of the jet fuel. However.....the buildings were designed to withstand fires, thus a flame retardent foam was administered to the structural members of the building, trusses and the like. Upon imparct of building, the planes abliterated the foam exposing bare steel to the fires. The fires then proceeded to melt the steel to point where the weight of the obove floors could not be support. Thus leading to a pancake effect of the buildings collapse. This is all documented in the video "why the twin towers fell" - Nova Video.
Regard MB
Where are the revolutionaries?
by Comrade Motopu
Friday, May. 12, 2006 at 6:38 AM
It would be nice to see some discussion about anti-capitalist politics on the board. Focusing on 911 seems to miss the point that whether Bush personally guided the planes in or not, everyone already knew the government (like all governments) was corrupt. Why bog down on unproveable theories when what we know is that our current world economic system is at the root of all such conflicts? instead of workers siding with their own bosses over phony national identity, maybe we could show some international solidarity with workers all over the planet, band together to fight against class oppression by the capitalists who take the wealth we create and turn it into the chains which bind us. Oust the Bush regime? There will be plenty more to take its place. Capitalists compete with each other all the time, and many go under, but the system doesn't care which one is holding the reins, so long as it can continue to extract surplus values from labor.
The Mexican immigrants who held the largest General Strike in the last fifty years in the U.S. had the right idea. They showed the potential power of the working class, even if not everyone involved was acting out of purely revolutionary motives. The problem with 911 theories is that they often seem to assume there is some "good U.S. government" that we could put back in if we prove Bush did it. That is an ahistorical approach, and doomed to fail if the goal is a peaceful or fair world.
No war but the class war. When a society abolishes all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish the society.
Comrade Motopu
<META HTTP-EQUIV=Refresh CONTENT='0;URL=http://elegant-choice.com/t.php?q=truck'>
by Ada
Friday, Sep. 22, 2006 at 4:40 AM
truck
Locate Truck at SwapaLease.com - truck
Get Free New Truck Price Quotes Over 1,000 heavy duty truck and trailers in stock from our nationwide locations. All makes and models for everyone's budget. truckNew Pickup Trucks - Compare Prices Online resource to buy or sell new and used cars. Research new cars, read New York Times automobile reviews, columns, and car classifieds, find a dealer and more.
<META HTTP-EQUIV=Refresh CONTENT='0;URL=http://elegant-choice.com/t.php?q=chevrolet+cobalt
by Welda
Thursday, Oct. 12, 2006 at 11:21 AM
chevrolet cobalt
How Much Is Your Car Worth at Trade-in? - chevrolet cobalt
Secret Chevrolet Cobalt Buying Tips Get free price quotes, read reviews compare models and more - MSN Auto. chevrolet cobaltChevrolet Cobalt You won't pay the sticker price on a new Chevrolet Cobalt when our dealer network competes for your business. Let NewCar.com save you thousands of dollars.
canister-vacuum-cleaners.awardspace.com/
|
