9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[GuyPinestra]

You would think this guy would know what those buildings were designed to withstand...

Frank A. DeMartini - YouTube

Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...

Questions for you.

What was the speed of the plane they used in the calculation?
Is there a force difference between a 707 and a 767 impacting the towers?
Was fire considered IN CONJUNCTION with the plane impacts?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it was plane impacts AND fire that caused the initiation of the collapse?

[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "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, he says, The building structure would still be there."

The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

It seems you guys decided to ignore these, so I thought I'd repeat myself...

 

[SAYIT]

Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...

Questions for you.

What was the speed of the plane they used in the calculation?
Is there a force difference between a 707 and a 767 impacting the towers?
Was fire considered IN CONJUNCTION with the plane impacts?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it was plane impacts AND fire that caused the initiation of the collapse?

Because his CT falls apart when all the facts are considered.

 

[SAYIT]

American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.

What is this? Why it is some of the companies/organizations that assisted the NIST in their report.

And those organizations conducted much of the investigation but obviously they were all in on the "conspiracy."

 

[SAYIT]

American Society of Civil Engineers,
Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
National Fire Protection Association,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
Structural Engineers Association of New York.


What is this? Why it is some of the companies/organizations that assisted the NIST in their report.

Who is it that helped the truthers prepare their official report? Oh wait, they don't have one do they.....

Need we know more?

Sure they do. Just puruse the Internet and you'll find dozens of official, often conflicting, "truther" reports.

 

[SAYIT]

You would think this guy would know what those buildings were designed to withstand...

Frank A. DeMartini - YouTube

Questions for you.

What was the speed of the plane they used in the calculation?
Is there a force difference between a 707 and a 767 impacting the towers?
Was fire considered IN CONJUNCTION with the plane impacts?

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it was plane impacts AND fire that caused the initiation of the collapse?

[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "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, he says, The building structure would still be there."

The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

It seems you guys decided to ignore these, so I thought I'd repeat myself...

The buildings did survive the impacts and the answer to your question is obvious ... he was wrong about the fire damage. He had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn and must have assumed they would be extinguished before weakening the structure. The buildings did indeed collapse, Princess.

 

[GuyPinestra]

You would think this guy would know what those buildings were designed to withstand...

Frank A. DeMartini - YouTube

[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. "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, he says, The building structure would still be there."

The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

It seems you guys decided to ignore these, so I thought I'd repeat myself...

The buildings did survive the impacts and the answer to your question is obvious ... he was wrong about the fire damage. He had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn and must have assumed they would be extinguished before weakening the structure. The buildings did indeed collapse, Princess.

Listen up, Doofus...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there."

hor·ren·dous
/həˈrendəs/
Adjective
Extremely unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible: "she suffered horrendous injuries".
Synonyms
terrible - grisly - awful - dire - frightful - dreadful

You're trying to tell me he " had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn"?

Get real, Princess...

 

[SAYIT]

Sorry. I could only watch 15 minutes. All that stuff doesn't prove anything or show complicity.

There's only a few things you need to find out who did this and why.

1. Read the page too: Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News
2. Go find the Iraqi oil contracts prior to 2001. Every country was represented except 1. The U.S.A.
3. Commerce Department's Dick Cheney's Oil Map.

1a. Show with spoken words of a witness at the meeting, that removing Saddam Hussein was a top priority of the Bush, W. Administration.

2a. Shows the reason why Removing Hussein was a top priority. Destroying Iraq would cancel any existing oil contracts.

3a. Show how the Iraqi oil fields were eventually divided up through contracts to US and US allies.

It's this simple without all the clutter.

You seem to be saying it was an inside job to facilitate the war in Iraq.
If that was true why take all the risk necessary to conduct such an elaborate black op?
A truck load of explosives at the base of the core would have done the trick without "all the clutter."
Better yet, planting evidence of WMD's in Iraq, an eminently simpler plan, would have created the same justification without smacking Afghanistan.
Finally, your theory fails when the reality of trying to organize and conduct such an attack on America is applied.

 

[SAYIT]

It seems you guys decided to ignore these, so I thought I'd repeat myself...

The buildings did survive the impacts and the answer to your question is obvious ... he was wrong about the fire damage. He had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn and must have assumed they would be extinguished before weakening the structure. The buildings did indeed collapse, Princess.

Listen up, Doofus...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there."

hor·ren·dous
/həˈrendəs/
Adjective
Extremely unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible: "she suffered horrendous injuries".
Synonyms
terrible - grisly - awful - dire - frightful - dreadful

You're trying to tell me he " had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn"?

Get real, Princess...

Nice word. Do you have anything which shows he did know?

 

[GuyPinestra]

The buildings did survive the impacts and the answer to your question is obvious ... he was wrong about the fire damage. He had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn and must have assumed they would be extinguished before weakening the structure. The buildings did indeed collapse, Princess.

Listen up, Doofus...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there."

hor·ren·dous
/həˈrendəs/
Adjective
Extremely unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible: "she suffered horrendous injuries".
Synonyms
terrible - grisly - awful - dire - frightful - dreadful

You're trying to tell me he " had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn"?

Get real, Princess...

Nice word. Do you have anything which shows he did know?

Just the English language, idiot...

 

[SAYIT]

Listen up, Doofus...


hor·ren·dous
/həˈrendəs/
Adjective
Extremely unpleasant, horrifying, or terrible: "she suffered horrendous injuries".
Synonyms
terrible - grisly - awful - dire - frightful - dreadful

You're trying to tell me he " had no way of knowing how long or how hot those fires would burn"?

Get real, Princess...

Nice word. Do you have anything which shows he did know?

Just the English language, idiot...

Fine, Princess, but he did not say the structures could withstand horrific fires now did he? Want to know why? Because they could not.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Nice word. Do you have anything which shows he did know?

Just the English language, idiot...

Fine, Princess, but he did not say the structures could withstand horrific fires now did he? Want to know why? Because they could not.

Yes, he did...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, "The building structure would still be there."

 

[SFC Ollie]

Just the English language, idiot...

Fine, Princess, but he did not say the structures could withstand horrific fires now did he? Want to know why? Because they could not.

Yes, he did...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, "The building structure would still be there."

He was wrong......... Besides big difference in a 707 and a 767....

 

[PredFan]

10-20-50 years down the road, if anyone is talking about this at all it will be no different than today. The truthers will have proven nothing, disproven nothing, and will still refuse to see reason.

It's like the Kennedy Assassination. Everyone else has moved on except the fringe.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Pretty much......

 

[GuyPinestra]

Fine, Princess, but he did not say the structures could withstand horrific fires now did he? Want to know why? Because they could not.

Yes, he did...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, "The building structure would still be there."

He was wrong......... Besides big difference in a 707 and a 767....

Big difference, huh??

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.

 

[GuyPinestra]

10-20-50 years down the road, if anyone is talking about this at all it will be no different than today. The truthers will have proven nothing, disproven nothing, and will still refuse to see reason.

It's like the Kennedy Assassination. Everyone else has moved on except the fringe.

You do know that the government has withheld until 2017 the release of ALL info, right?

You might be interested in learning that even then those records can be withheld indefinitely.

In addition, according to Section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, all records in the Kennedy Collection will be opened by 2017 unless certified as justifiably closed by the President of the United States.

Frequently Asked Questions

It's been 50+ years since Kennedy's assassination and they're STILL hiding shit!

 

[SAYIT]

Just the English language, idiot...

Fine, Princess, but he did not say the structures could withstand horrific fires now did he? Want to know why? Because they could not.

Yes, he did...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, "The building structure would still be there."

No, he didn't say the structures could withstand horrific fires, he said "horrendous fire."
The point being his description was subjective and in the case of the horrific 9/11 fires, incorrect.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Fine, Princess, but he did not say the structures could withstand horrific fires now did he? Want to know why? Because they could not.

Yes, he did...

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, "The building structure would still be there."

No, he didn't say the structures could withstand horrific fires, he said "horrendous fire."
The point being his description was subjective and in the case of the horrific 9/11 fires, incorrect.

horrific
adjective
extremely disturbing or repellent <horrific images of torture that shocked the conscience of the world>
Synonyms appalling, atrocious, awful, dreadful, frightful, ghastly, grisly, gruesome (also grewsome), hideous, horrendous, horrid, horrific, horrifying, lurid, macabre, monstrous, nightmare, nightmarish, shocking, terrible, terrific

Keep digging...

 

[SAYIT]

Yes, he did...

He was wrong......... Besides big difference in a 707 and a 767....

Big difference, huh??

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.

The 707s in use when the tests were conducted had a max take-off weight of 257,000 lbs ... about 40% less of that of the 767.
Guessing the speed which the study used or the max speed of the jets is irrelevant. Both buildings survived the impacts, just as the study projected.
So how hot and for how long was the "horrendous" fire in that study expected to burn?

 

[SAYIT]

Yes, he did...

No, he didn't say the structures could withstand horrific fires, he said "horrendous fire."
The point being his description was subjective and in the case of the horrific 9/11 fires, incorrect.

horrific
adjective
extremely disturbing or repellent <horrific images of torture that shocked the conscience of the world>
Synonyms appalling, atrocious, awful, dreadful, frightful, ghastly, grisly, gruesome (also grewsome), hideous, horrendous, horrid, horrific, horrifying, lurid, macabre, monstrous, nightmare, nightmarish, shocking, terrible, terrific

Keep digging...

My point remains untouched. The description is subjective. How hot and for how long was the "horrendous" fire in that study expected to burn, Princess?

Keep deflecting.