9/11 documentary now

[franksinatra]

It wasn't moulten aluminium that was found, it was steel.
To argue against clear facts stated by engineers, architects and physicists is futile, head in the sand behaviour.
You can also add historians.
The towers were designed to easily withstand the impact of a passenger jet at full speed.
In the last 20 years, between 500-600 high rise, steel and concrete structure building fires have been studied. Only 3 have ever collapsed. North tower, South tower and building 7.

Even in a bog standard house steel has to be protected from the effects of fire as steel loses it strength at such a low temperature. Its the reason we wrap it in Plasterboard.

In this instance it would have been protected by concrete, however im sure a plane would pierce that at the speed it was going and subsequent explosion.

Failure of any of the beams would result in additional loading to other elements which could easily result in them also failing as they would not be designed to support the additional loading,creating the pack of cards effect. Not a clue why you would think an architect may have any knowldege of this.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

I can't think of any other buildings which have had a passenger jet crashed into at full speed.

No plane crashed into Building 7.

The buildings where designed to withstand a small plane I seem to remember.

Think again.

 

[west didsblue]

No plane crashed into Building 7.



Think again.

A 767 is quite a lot bigger than a 707.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Even in a bog standard house steel has to be protected from the effects of fire as steel loses it strength at such a low temperature. Its the reason we wrap it in Plasterboard.

In this instance it would have been protected by concrete, however im sure a plane would pierce that at the speed it was going and subsequent explosion.

Failure of any of the beams would result in additional loading to other elements which could easily result in them also failing as they would not be designed to support the additional loading,creating the pack of cards effect. Not a clue why you would think an architect may have any knowldege of this.

This doesn't explain how Building 7 was in freefall for a period of 2.5 seconds. This means it was falling through itself for over 100 feet with zero resistance, an impossibility in any natural scenario.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

A 767 is quite a lot bigger than a 707.

No it's not. And it's not just about how big it is. That's such a simplistic way of thinking.

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.

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.

The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
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.

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.

If the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

 

[west didsblue]

No it's not. And it's not just about how big it is. That's such a simplistic way of thinking.

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.

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.

The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
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.

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.

If the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

That clip didn't say which 707 variant it was designed to withstand. A 707-120 has a fuel capacity of 50,000 litres compared to 90,000 litres for a 767-200ER which would make quite a difference.

Also, as you say, it was designed for an accidental impact. If it was an accident, I doubt the assumption is that the aircraft would be travelling at 500mph.

Also the design case only considered the impact and not the resulting fire.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

No plane crashed into Building 7.

I was on about the towers.

Think again.

The towers clearly couldn't handle a passenger jet flying into them. I'm now awaiting to be told that the planes wasn't the cause of both towers to collapse.

 

[west didsblue]

The towers clearly couldn't handle a passenger jet flying into them. I'm now awaiting to be told that the planes wasn't the cause of both towers to collapse.

Apparently it was a a controlled demolition but the perpetrators arranged for 2 fully loaded 767s to crash into them first. Obviously they'd spent the previous few weeks sneaking explosives into the building, wiring them up and hoping the planes crashing wouldn't interfere with the explosive detonation.

 

[2sheikhs]

I can't think of any other buildings which have had a passenger jet crashed into at full speed. The buildings where designed to withstand a small plane I seem to remember.

No.
A 707

 

[2sheikhs]

West didsbury, I had exactly the same mindset as you before watching the documentaries. I'd always dismissed the conspiracy theories as tin foil hat bullshit. The people who are giving their explanations aren't pointing the finger at anyone, just merely answering scientific questions.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Apparently it was a a controlled demolition but the perpetrators arranged for 2 fully loaded 767s to crash into them first. Obviously they'd spent the previous few weeks sneaking explosives into the building, wiring them up and hoping the planes crashing wouldn't interfere with the explosive detonation.

There's a good video on YouTube explaining why the towers collapsed. The force of the crash did a lot of damage, then the heat of the fire buckled the steels which made the structure sag, then the rest is history. You can see both towers sagging inwards just before it falls. I'll admit there's a lot of dodgy queries about 9/11, but I don't believe the towers where rigged with explosives.

 

[west didsblue]

West didsbury, I had exactly the same mindset as you before watching the documentaries. I'd always dismissed the conspiracy theories as tin foil hat bullshit. The people who are giving their explanations aren't pointing the finger at anyone, just merely answering scientific questions.

I think I've read as much as anyone about the event and seen plenty of documentaries. I've not seen a single conspiracy theory that hasn't been thoroughly debunked, whether it's related to thermite, missiles, passports, insurance scams or anything else. That includes anything I've seen in these documentaries, which to me seem to have been made with an agenda in mind and ignore inconvenient facts.

 

[west didsblue]

There's a good video on YouTube explaining why the towers collapsed. The force of the crash did a lot of damage, then the heat of the fire buckled the the steels which made the structure sag, then the rest is history. You can see both towers sagging inwards just before it falls. I'll admit there's a lot of dodgy queries about 9/11, but I don't believe the towers where rigged with explosives.

I agree. As has been said, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a passenger plane but that analysis did not properly take into account an uncontrollable fire fuelled by tens of thousands of litres of aviation fuel. That was admitted by those that did the analysis in the first place.

 

[SWP's back]

Apparently it was a a controlled demolition but the perpetrators arranged for 2 fully loaded 767s to crash into them first. Obviously they'd spent the previous few weeks sneaking explosives into the building, wiring them up and hoping the planes crashing wouldn't interfere with the explosive detonation.

This.

Anyone that thinks the twin towers fell for any reason other than the two planes hitting them is clearly mental.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

That clip didn't say which 707 variant it was designed to withstand. A 707-120 has a fuel capacity of 50,000 litres compared to 90,000 litres for a 767-200ER which would make quite a difference.

A DC-8 - which it was also designed to withstand - has a fuel capacity of 89,865.40 litres. But your point is irrelevant anyway because the planes weren't fully loaded with fuel. It's estimated that there were 38,000 litres of fuel on each plane at impact.

Also, as you say, it was designed for an accidental impact. If it was an accident, I doubt the assumption is that the aircraft would be travelling at 500mph.

Actually, they were designed for impacts at around 600 MPH.

Also the design case only considered the impact and not the resulting fire.

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

The towers clearly couldn't handle a passenger jet flying into them.

Even though they were designed to?

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Even though they were designed to?

They may have been designed too, the design clearly didn't work.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

This.

Anyone that thinks the twin towers fell for any reason other than the two planes hitting them is clearly mental.

Anyone who thinks a building collapsing due to fire could travel faster and faster, straight down through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – the 80,000 tons of structural steel below that was at least five times stronger than necessary to resist this load - is clearly mental.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

They may have been designed too, but it the design clearly didn't work.

That's an assumption based on the official story. A story with more holes than Swiss cheese.

 

[worsleyweb]

Anyone who thinks a building collapsing due to fire could travel faster and faster, straight down through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – the 80,000 tons of structural steel below that was at least five times stronger than necessary to resist this load - is clearly mental.

Good post. A bloke I once shared a jacuzzi with at the gym who used words which Gordon davies's moustache would have to google told me it was all a conspiracy.