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

[GuyPinestra]

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?

What, no link? Show me...

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Until all available fuel was consumed, however long that may take.

 

[SAYIT]

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?

What, no link? Show me...

I provided the same link to my info that you did to yours, Princess.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Until all available fuel was consumed, however long that may take.

Really? How did the authors of that now 6 decade old study know how much fuel (combustibles) would be in the Towers on 9/11/2001 and how long and hot they would burn? I have been unable to access that study at all. Could you provide the link?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

What, no link? Show me...

I provided the same link to my info that you did to yours, Princess.

The only difference being that your info is incorrect. Your info is for the 1954 707 prototype, known as the Dash-80, while my info is for the 707-320, which was produced from 1958...

Boeing 707 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing 707 - Specifications - Technical Data / Description (english)

 

[Mr. Jones]

I don't know. But that is my point. If the government was trying to hide something then they'd have dotted all their "i"s and crossed all their "t"s. They didn't know ahead of time and they did their usual shitty government job.

There is no conspiracy.

Yes there is. It is the official conspiracy theory that does not make sense, can not be proved in many ways, including scientifically, or physically.
When you say "government" it implies many people as being involved, when this may not have been needed to be the case at all.

You are trying to get me to disbelieve the government's story because it has holes in it but you're asking me to believe a theory that has many more and larger holes?

Sorry, Occam's Razor applies here.

The simplest and more logical explanation as to how the mass of the buildings were taken out of the equation, thereby facilitating the unusually fast descents
in 15-20 seconds, has not even been properly evaluated, or even considered, by NIST.
They refused to look at the simplest explanation. Their testing shows their theory highly unlikely, they used data figures that are unreasonable, and in other cases completely hide the data from replication altogether.
This was not a scientific report. That is why there is opposition to them and why there are papers that show the flaws within their guesses, and theory.
The alternative theory ultimately points to something else assisting the demise of the buildings, and that in it self opens the case to other means and other people, which is exactly what they do not want to be even discussed.
They themselves do not apply Occam's Razor test to their own theory.
There are more then just holes in it, there are outright fabrications, that are used to support a theory that is in line with other policies, that have been planned, discussed, and were implemented using the 9-11 attacks as a starting point.
If you do not know the details, then maybe you should look into them.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.

That's impossible!

Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!

Impossible? Um...OK...
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: “NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

WTC Disaster Study

Typical disinfo. Your link is to NIST while your quote comes from a loony tunes 9/11 "truther" web site.
All you prove with your shrill half-truths, distortions and fabrications is that you and your "cause" are full of shit and I thank you for that. Gamolon's point remains unchallenged: it is impossible to engineer a building to withstand all catastrophies.

This point you defend is simply another strawman. I simply pointed out that the WTC towers were designed with plane impacts in mind. Continue reading, you are not even close to understanding yet...

 

[Mr. Jones]

WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.
This happened to 3 buildings in one day, with NIST providing only assumptions with nothing to base them on.
That is the main problem. Now if you think you can provide an explanation that NIST failed to provide..have at it.

First question to begin the explanation.

How long did it take for each of the three buildings to fully collapse from start to end? I'm asking you this, not because I'm lazy, but because people have different ideas as to the collapse time.

You have made it painfully obvious the buildings collapsed from the top down (not from the bottom as in a controlled demo) after being slammed by jetliners carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and hours of fierce fires. Sista Jones ingores all that and clings to the bogus notion that the structures were built to withstand all catastrophies. You may as well be talking to a wall.

Your statement is a lie in an attempt to make it appear as though I said what you imply.
Your "thousands of gallons of fuel" have been proved by NIST themselves to have been consumed shortly after impact, and your " and hours of fierce fires" have also been debunked as wild exaggeration numerous times through the years discussing this topic.
The towers withstood impacts,
The towers burned for extremely low times, with low temps.
The NIST guess/theory is not correct given these facts.
You call what I post bogus, but you never substantiate why. Your attempt to use the exaggerations that NIST used, fails.
The structures were designed with plane impacts in mind period, and they did their job.
Now do you want to explain what in the NIST reports lead you to assume that collapse was a forgone conclusion because they sure haven't.

If you believe in their theory, then post the details of of what you believe in, and why.

 

[Rozman]

The amount of explosives needed to take out one of the towers would have to be substantial I would guess.Now we are supposed to believe that both towers and 7 WTC were loaded with explosives...
were these buildings loaded with explosives just in case a few planes happened to crash into them..

Oh wait a second,you guys are saying the whole event,the planes and the explosives were all part of this big conspiracy...

I'm going to take a nap now...

Maybe you guys can work on this a bit more...make it a little more believable.

 

[Mr. Jones]

No. My quote was in direct response to your assertion that the engineers and designers PLANNED or DESIGNED for the building to redistribute loads from damaged components.



Engineers and designers cannot design for or predict load redistribution when said load redistribution is a random event because it would perpetuate on and on.

Example.

They run calculations for a random scenario. The remove 14% of the perimeter columns on the east face of floor 80 and then strengthen the rest of the structure to accommodate the load redistribution that occurs from those perimeter columns being removed. What happens if the perimeter columns were removed for 2 floors? 3 floors? What if 20% of the perimeter columns were failed/removed for 3 floors? More calculations and the strengthening of the remaining components. What if an additional two core columns were thrown into the mix? Lets add fire that weakens the components on floor 80 by 30%? Now what? Redesign the remaining components?

Do you see a pattern here?

In essence, your statement that "the buildings redistributed the loads according to the designers plans is BS.

Tell you what. To prove my point, go ask any engineer to 100% guarantee that any structure they designed will NEVER, EVER collapse do to any circumstance because they looked at every possible damage scenario possible and designed for it.



They did withstand the impact did they not? Did they remain standing after the planes hit them? For how long? Or are you claiming that when someone refers to an impact event lasts for a period of time?

The towers withstood the impact, but were damaged. They collapsed because of DAMAGE from the impacts and the resultant fire.

Let's say someone was driving their car. They get hit by another car. They survive the impact but are trapped inside because the doors won't open. The car catches fire and the person trapped inside dies. Did the person die from the actual impact or from the fire?

WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
They don't explain the how the undamaged structure did not, halt the collapse fronts, or what removed the resistance to allow such rapid descents.
This happened to 3 buildings in one day, with NIST providing only assumptions with nothing to base them on.
That is the main problem. Now if you think you can provide an explanation that NIST failed to provide..have at it.

They were not felled in 15-20 seconds but rather after hours of damage from the fires. A 10 year old could grasp this fact.

And a 5 year old could grasp that we are referring to collapse times idiot, Now if you think you can provide an explanation that the NIST failed to provide.regaring these unusually fast times with regards to their mass, and energy .have at it.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

No it is your crazy CY that is being exposed and falls apart when all the facts available are considered jackass. Please...explain what in the report solidifies the imminent collapse of the towers, and building 7.
You support their theory, so go ahead and post what is in it that makes you such a staunch supporter..And try not to use wildly exaggerated terms as those have already been addressed and shown to be BS.

 

[SAYIT]

Impossible? Um...OK...
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: “NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

WTC Disaster Study

Typical disinfo. Your link is to NIST while your quote comes from a loony tunes 9/11 "truther" web site.
All you prove with your shrill half-truths, distortions and fabrications is that you and your "cause" are full of shit and I thank you for that. Gamolon's point remains unchallenged: it is impossible to engineer a building to withstand all catastrophies.

This point you defend is simply another strawman. I simply pointed out that the WTC towers were designed with plane impacts in mind. Continue reading, you are not even close to understanding yet...

Straw Man? You dishonestly posted an NIST link to a loony Tunes 9/11 "truther" web site statement and we both know why ... you hoped to give the statement credibility.

The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 1960s Boeing 707 and they endured the impact of much larger and heavier 767s and remained intact until the fires did the dirty deed. How is it you never seem to remember that small fact and continue repeating the same old silly story? Could it be in your heart of hearts you, like most peeps, know you and your movement are frauds?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Until all available fuel was consumed, however long that may take.

Really? How did the authors of that now 6 decade old study know how much fuel (combustibles) would be in the Towers on 9/11/2001 and how long and hot they would burn? I have been unable to access that study at all. Could you provide the link?

Just guessing here, Princess, but 'typical office contents' of furniture, carpets and paper wouldn't change much over 50 (not 60) years. It would be reasonable to assume that they expected full occupancy of the building, wouldn't it?

Then consider that on 9/11/2001 those buildings were at less than full occupancy, empty rooms having much less flammable materials in them than full ones.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Typical disinfo. Your link is to NIST while your quote comes from a loony tunes 9/11 "truther" web site.
All you prove with your shrill half-truths, distortions and fabrications is that you and your "cause" are full of shit and I thank you for that. Gamolon's point remains unchallenged: it is impossible to engineer a building to withstand all catastrophies.

This point you defend is simply another strawman. I simply pointed out that the WTC towers were designed with plane impacts in mind. Continue reading, you are not even close to understanding yet...

Straw Man? You dishonestly posted an NIST link to a loony Tunes 9/11 "truther" web site statement and we both know why ... you hoped to give the statement credibility.

The Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 1960s Boeing 707 and they endured the impact of much larger and heavier 767s and remained intact until the fires did the dirty deed. How is it you never seem to remember that small fact and continue repeating the same old silly story? Could it be in your heart of hearts you, like most peeps, know you and your movement are frauds?

There you go with your bullshit again. I posted the comparative specs of both airframes, you quoted it and TRIED to dispute it, I proved you in error and you STILL stick to your disproven bullshit.

You're a LIAR, SAYIT, and an obvious one, at that.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

You have to reference the NIST report to understand that the fires temp was not alleviated for the length of time to cause the kind of damage to the steel that they claimed started the collapses. Nist admits the majority was consumed in the fireballs, and only sporadic fires persisted due to regular office combustibles.
You lack the brains to understand this, or purposefully leaving it out of the equation.
You mentioned weakening of the structure. This is what should have occurred, but only locally, therefore a slow "creep" and hesitating, and at times halting collapse should have ensued. Not the exploding, ejecting, dustificating one we saw, that progressed seemingly unimpeded in such short collapse times....in both buildings.

Explain what in the NIST report leads you believe this was imminent?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

No it is your crazy CY that is being exposed and falls apart when all the facts available are considered jackass. Please...explain what in the report solidifies the imminent collapse of the towers, and building 7.
You support their theory, so go ahead and post what is in it that makes you such a staunch supporter..And try not to use wildly exaggerated terms as those have already been addressed and shown to be BS.

What in the NIST report solidifies the collapse of those buildings?
Gee, Princess, could it be the fact that they did, indeed, collapse?
And as always you conclude with utter BS.
It's not that I support the Commission's conclusions but rather that the shrill, desperate, dishonest silliness of your 9/11 CT movement pales in comparison.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

Ah the troll finally concedes, and looks the fool he/it it is..No he was unsure regarding the fire, but just the fact that they stood reinforces how they were designed to withstand plane impacts. Now if only you could back up your description of the fires being so horrific, that they would cause a total global collapse, in both towers. Perhaps point to where in the NIST reports they convince you of this....It's laughable that you try to use the exaggerating tactics that they did on a bunch of skeptics that can show you were their theory and work is flawed... LOL!

 

[Mr. Jones]

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....

Really how so? Everything NIST has claimed has been rebutted, and better theories have been put forth.
Again you never mention what in their reports quantify the WTC buildings should have behaved the way they did on 9-11. You use every tactic, unprovable exaggerations, and words, but I haven't seen anything that is convincing.

 

[SAYIT]

First question to begin the explanation.

How long did it take for each of the three buildings to fully collapse from start to end? I'm asking you this, not because I'm lazy, but because people have different ideas as to the collapse time.

You have made it painfully obvious the buildings collapsed from the top down (not from the bottom as in a controlled demo) after being slammed by jetliners carrying thousands of gallons of fuel and hours of fierce fires. Sista Jones ingores all that and clings to the bogus notion that the structures were built to withstand all catastrophies. You may as well be talking to a wall.

Your statement is a lie in an attempt to make it appear as though I said what you imply.

Did you really just say that, Princess?

Your "thousands of gallons of fuel" have been proved by NIST themselves to have been consumed shortly after impact, and your " and hours of fierce fires" have also been debunked as wild exaggeration numerous times through the years discussing this topic.The towers withstood impacts,
The towers burned for extremely low times, with low temps.

The hours of fierce fires has not been debunked and they did not burn "for extremely low times, with low temps."

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

It's way past time to continue to allow them to write their own history based on their own unprovable facts. It has been proven that this nation is run by lying criminals. If you aren't aware of this yet don't assume others are just as stupid and gullible as yourself.