Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Aircraft in Pentagon security camera video

The WTC was built - you don't do these things retrospectively - to withstand an accidental collision from a 707 or 727 aircraft. Accidental means not at cruise speed and not fully loaded with fuel. Anyone can tell you this; please, get a grip.
 
DrJazzz said:
Indeed, even with the fires, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed through fire before - and some of them had had real infernos (unlike the South Tower, where the fire was basically out).

Sounds like bullshit, I'm afraid. Steel buildings are very susceptible to fire damage. Even way below the steel-melting temperatures of a massive kerosene fire, steel weakens tremendously at 1000 degrees C (a household fire can do this)

At the WTC, lots of the columns were broken by the initial impact, remaining columns were buckled by the fire. Seeing as the external columns supported much of the weight, their failure led to the building's failure.

That's how I see it anyway.
 
brixtonvilla said:
As usual, you haven't answered the basic question; isn't flying an aircraft into a skyscraper enough of a terrorist act? Even Osama Bin fucking Laden said he didn't expect the towers to collapse. Here's an obviously faked, Lizard-and-smoking-man approved source:

"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all we had hoped for."


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.osama.exclusive/

Actually, don't bother responding, it'll only be more diversionary irrelevant bullshit. Debating with you is like waving a dinosaur fossil in front of Jehovah's witnesses, only less fun. And yes, I know this marks me out as one of the unthinking masses in your book, but frankly fuck your book. You're a delusional idiotand I'll wear your patronising scorn like a fucking badge. Goodbye.

Yes, you said it - an obviously-faked source. The CIA. Haven't you noticed they come up with complete bullshit? The quote comes from the infamous 'fatty Bin Laden' video which the CIA just happened to come across. Somehow, the media accepts this unquestioningly as being Bin Laden - despite the fact it looked nothing like him

osamafake.jpg
osama.jpg


Spot the difference?

As for the tone of the rest of your post, well... nutbar just got banned for similar. So pull yourself together, and remember, it's just a bulletin board. Play nicely. ;-)
 
alphaDelta said:
The WTC was built - you don't do these things retrospectively - to withstand an accidental collision from a 707 or 727 aircraft. Accidental means not at cruise speed and not fully loaded with fuel. Anyone can tell you this; please, get a grip.
No it doesn't, and we've had this discussion before. They were designed to take a strike at full speed from a fully-laden jumbo, I forget which, but larger than a 757 IIRC.
 
And Crispy, it's not bullshit that steel-framed buildings had never before fallen due to fire, I promise. (or fire + aircraft strike)
 
DrJazzz said:
The WTC was designed to take a full-on strike from a jumbo
Really? Are you an expert or something?
Personally, I prefer to listen to people who actually know something about the subject:
British Engineers Give Their Theory Taken from BBC:

The design of the World Trade Center saved thousands of lives by standing for well over an hour after the planes crashed into its twin towers, say structural engineers.

"It was the fire that killed the buildings - nothing on Earth could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning" Structural engineer Chris Wise

But the towers' ultimate collapse was inevitable, as the steel cores inside them reached temperatures of 800C - raising questions why hundreds of rescue workers were sent into the doomed buildings to their deaths.

The steel and concrete structure performed amazingly well, said John Knapton, professor in structural engineering at Newcastle University, UK. "I believe tens of thousands of lives have been saved by the structural integrity of the buildings," he told BBC News Online. "They had a lot of their structure taken out, yet they remained intact for more than an hour, allowing thousands to escape."

But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel core in each building would have eventually reached melting point - 800C. The protective concrete cladding on the cores would certainly have been no defense in these extraordinary circumstances.

"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire" - World Trade Center construction manager.

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on Earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

The building's construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved it from the inferno. "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

"I would have given the order to get out - you would have thought someone with technical expertise would have been advising them" Professor John Knapton, Newcastle University "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 liters) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

Once the steel frame on one floor had melted, it collapsed downwards, inflicting massive forces on the already-weakened floor below. From then on, the collapse became inevitable, as each new falling floor added to the downward forces. Further down the building, even steel at normal temperatures gave way under the enormous weight - an estimated 100,000 tones from the upper floors alone.
 
Look, you moron...
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/march/wtc.htm said:
We will consider the effect of the plane crashes on the towers. Each plane was a wide cabin jetliner loaded with enough fuel to fly to the America West Coast, 5000 km away. Each was flying at very high speed at the moment of impact. At the time of the design of the towers the largest commercial plane flying was the Boeing 707. Leslie Robinson designed his towers to withstand being hit by a 707.

But the scenario of his design was very different from what happened on September 11th : He envisaged a 707 lost in fog looking for the airport, low on fuel at the end of its flight, with a pilot not daring to go faster than the stalling speed of 280 km per hour under such dangerous conditions.

The planes which hit the towers were estimated to be doing between 750 and 950 km per hour, respectively! Their destructive power can be shown to rise with the square of speed, so you can see that this event was about an order of magnitude worse than Robinson had imagined.
Edit: Naturally, that was to the Doctor
 
And for the last fucking time:
The towers were designed to withstand fires, winds, and ironically, plane crashes. One of the engineers who worked on the tower's structural design said after the 93 bombing that the towers were strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded, fully fueled, Boeing 707, which in the 60's was the biggest commercial airplane (New York Times).

In the event of a fire, the sprinkler system would come on. There was also a thick layer of insulation on the supporting beams. It was said that the building was designed to withstand heat and fire for up to three hours.

Unfortunately, on September 11th the building was not prepared to handle a fire of such intense heat or a plane of such size. The sprinkler system was useless against the intense heat of the jet fuel fire.

The Boeing 767 was considerably larger than the 707. The 707 weighed around 160,000 pounds with all its fuel. The Boeing 767 was nearly two and a half times bigger, and had twice as much fuel. No engineers could have designed a defense system to withstand the blow.
http://tinyurl.com/5y44r
Now shut the fuck up, DrJ.
You're becoming a pathetic, deludued, obsessed joke.

Read the academic research contained in that link and realise what a complete twat you're making of yourself. If you're unable to comprehend or accept the words, get an adult to read it for you and let them explain the facts to you.

The guy who designed the fucking WTC does not think they were hit by missile firing missiles, imploded from within or any other of the fucking idiotic conspiracy lies you post here. And he knows more than you or any of your laughable conspiraloons will ever know.
 
And finally:
The WTC towers "did very well" to stand as long as they did, the head of the official inquiry into their collapse said in a BBC Horizon programme broadcast in the UK on Thursday.

But other structural engineers say use of more robust materials would have definitely allowed some people trapped on the upper floors of the centre to escape and may have prevented their collapse entirely.

The issue is of vital interest because the WTC's design was revolutionary and its construction methods influenced skyscrapers across the world.

Leslie Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.

"With the 707 however, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design," he told Horizon.

But as the programme explained, it was the fuel aboard the hijacked Boeing 767s that led to the towers' collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858491.stm
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N61/61wtc.61n.html
 
editor said:
And for the last fucking time:

Now shut the fuck up, DrJ.
You're becoming a pathetic, deludued, obsessed joke.

Read the academic research contained in that link and realise what a complete twat you're making of yourself. If you're unable to comprehend or accept the words, get an adult to read it for you and let them explain the facts to you.

The guy who designed the fucking WTC does not think they were hit by missile firing missiles, imploded from within or any other of the fucking idiotic conspiracy lies you post here.

I fear I must take issue with this exceedingly patronising post. This was my source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html

I quote

To summarize the aircraft:

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.

In conclusion we can say that 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.

I think you should take back your ridiculous insults editor - although there is fat chance of you doing so.
 
DrJazzz said:
I think you should take back your ridiculous insults editor - although there is fat chance of you doing so.
One simple question: why does the designer of the WTC believe it was destroyed by the aircraft hitting it?

I'm sure you'll agree he knows more about the buildings than any of your laughable homepage authors, so why isn't he claiming it was imploded from within, hit by missiles or any other of your bonkers theories?

Go on. I dare you to answer this.

PS You haven't bothered to read the sites I linked to, have you?

:rolleyes:
 
You fool! Half of your stats are rubbish and irrelevant! Who cares about the rotate/landing speed?

You're not listening are you?

The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
 
And one more time:
"Leslie Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.

"With the 707 however, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design," he told Horizon.

But as the programme explained, it was the fuel aboard the hijacked Boeing 767s that led to the towers' collapse."

Got that? The fuel load was not considered in the design.

Now tell me why you think you know better than the guy who fucking designed the structure...
 
alphaDelta said:
And your stats are wrong!
I wonder where he got his stats from?

And I'm still waiting to find out why he thinks he knows better than the guy who designed the WTC.
 
alphaDelta said:
I can't find the 707 model quoted in that link.

However, the Robertson quote which implies they did not use full speed in their calculations is new to me and I accept it, although I would be interested to know just what speed they used - as I imagine that Robertson could have been under some pressure to say the right thing.

As someone who debates properly I will concede questions of fact when appropriate.
 
DrJazzz said:
As someone who debates properly I will concede questions of fact when appropriate.
How about bothering to research the facts first before posting up your ridiculous, ill informed conspiraloon claims?

The guy who designed the structural elements of the WTC towers has clearly said that it was the fuel aboard the hijacked Boeing 767s that led to the towers' collapse.

No missiles. No internal explosions. No pretend aircraft firing missiles.

End of.
 
editor said:
I wonder where he got his stats from?

And I'm still waiting to find out why he thinks he knows better than the guy who designed the WTC.

I bet Dr Jazz just recited those stats from the whatreallyhappened.com website (snigger) without a second thought that the article may be (ahem) more opinion than well researched facts.

It's all getting a little tragic now. I can understand why some people may be cynical about the nature of mainstream media. But you've got to worry about someone who's so prone to repeatedly falling hook line and sinker for any speculative tosh on dodgy websites...
 
DrJazzz said:
yes I saw that... kind of macabre, huh? :eek:
So did you bother to read the opinions expressed in that thread?
My bet is NO WAY!!! Just imagine a fully loaded airliner the size of the 707 (for modern comparison reasons, let's say a 757) slamming into any building. THINK ABOUT IT!!!
 
DrJazzz said:
As someone who debates properly I will concede questions of fact when appropriate.

So what are the facts to support your case then Dr Jazz? What evidence have you for your theory that outweighs the opinions of the structural engineer of the WTC for example?

You keep talking about proper debate, but you rarely show us the courtesy of bothering to check any of your facts or sources before piping up with your latest remarkable theory. You continue to post up a load of half-baked unsourced nonsense as 'fact' with depressing regularity...
 
There are loads of cutting questions to be asked, and loads to be gained from searching in the archived aviation forums over there (and at similar legitimate sites).

This is one good example: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1887368/4/

However the conspiricock nonsense in this thread (missiles! bombs! miniature robot drones) would have you rightly laughed out of town and I hope that if you insist on dragging us through this rubbish, you can maybe come up with something altogether more feasible.
 
Seeing as you wish me to discuss the WTC, and there is something that hasn't been posted before which in my opinion deserves to kick off a thread I shall do so. So as not to have more than one 9-11 thread at a time I will be happy for this one to be closed.
 
Actually, what puzzles me is if the CIA is smart enough to pull of this entire crazy stunt involving super hi technology, thousands of fake witnesses and payed off 'experts' ; then how come all these websites / books / talk radio shows can get away with revealing the 'truth' ?

Surely they'd be 'silenced' ?

Anyway, that's a silly argument which could be thrown back and forth forever. Physics of plane crashes is bit more susceptible to science. Bring it on :)
 
Crispy said:
Actually, what puzzles me is if the CIA is smart enough to pull of this entire crazy stunt involving super hi technology, thousands of fake witnesses and payed off 'experts' ; then how come all these websites / books / talk radio shows can get away with revealing the 'truth' ?

Surely they'd be 'silenced' ?

Anyway, that's a silly argument which could be thrown back and forth forever. Physics of plane crashes is bit more susceptible to science. Bring it on :)
Although you say it's a silly argument I wouldn't mind commenting Crispy :)

It wouldn't require technology that isn't already in the public domain, it wouldn't require thousands of fake witnesses (just a handful) and you wouldn't need to pay off anyone.

Compared to other mass media (ultimately controlled by a handful of people) the internet is highly unregulated. This is what makes the internet such a valuable information resource, although there is unquestioningly a lot of dross mixed in with the gold. The amount of people who would be on the inside of such a plot is very small - not thousands. Maybe a hundred. There are simply far too many people doubting 9-11 compared to the number of perpetrators for them to 'silence' them - a messy and involved process, which at the same time attracts attention to the cause of the 'silenced'.

Far better to ignore it, blur the trail by planting false flags, and the constant refrain of 'conspiracy nonsense'. That which makes the plot so audacious is also that which is its best defence - as Hitler noted, the 'big lie' has a far greater chance of success than a small one.
 
Back
Top Bottom