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

[Mr. Jones]

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?

You must now learn about the effects of fire on steel, and how steel spreads the heat to other attached parts of it, thus providing a cooling effect. There is no doubt that something provided the high temps required to destroy the steel at the WTC, but historically asymmetric office fires do not and never have cause such rapid, total global exploding collapses.
There have been other steel hirise buildings subjected to worse temps, for longer durations, that have never totally collapsed, producing rubble pile fires in excess of 12-15oo degrees that lasted for 100 days.
Now what was in those buildings that produced such extreme temps?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Didn't want you to miss this one, troll...

 

[SAYIT]

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)

You are wrong again, Princess. They are the 707-120B stats and they are from your Wikipedia link:
"The first flight of the −120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb."
The 707 Dash had an even lower max take-off weight.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

You'll have to do better then just say you observed their collapses. We all did, and that is what does not make scientific or physical sense.
But you'll have to study such things as the fuel loads within the buildings, the fire temp, and intensity, how the buildings steel components react to one another when the collide, how long it should take for the smaller damaged parts to overcome the larger, denser undamaged lower sections, etc..But these are things you have already admitted to "not understanding" so why are you still here defending something that you admit you don't understand?
You have plenty of derogatory things to say about the alternative views we offer, but when asked to get into any details you are just a weak cheerleader with nothing to back up his name calling or his assertions...

 

[Mr. Jones]

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."

Show us where you got the info to justify making such a claim then. Historically other buildings have burned longer, and hotter and never suffered a complete, total exploding collapse.
How long did the towers burn for Sayit? How many "hours"?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

We could use less of your guessing and assumptions and more facts, don't you agree? You are using a 20 year old subjective comment (horrendous fire) based on a now 50 (sorry) year old study in a lame attempt to prove the Towers should not have collapsed.
Here's a hot news tip, Princess ... they did.
Now if you would be so good as to produce that study we can intelligently argue its merits.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Not only did your source not prove me wrong, it proved me correct.
Doesn't that make you the liar, Princess?
The study was conducted in the early 1960s.
The max take-off weight of the 767 is 395,000 lbs.
"The first flight of the 707−120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb."

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes, he did...

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.

What better theories would that be?
I don't have to prove that the official investigating authorities are correct, I accept their report. You do not accept it and have zero proof that they are wrong. You have opinion and conjecture. Not proof. Show me one piece of det wire. Show me one beam cut by anything other than the torches used during cleanup. Show me a cooled pool of molten steel. Get us one whistle blower who was in on planting the explosives or covering up the investigation.... You got shit.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

Not only did your source not prove me wrong, it proved me correct.
Doesn't that make you the liar, Princess?
The study was conducted in the early 1960s.
The max take-off weight of the 767 is 395,000 lbs.
"The first flight of the 707−120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb."

Your alluding to some kind of a debate victory is hollow, as you have been proven a less then worthy opponent. Fuck the plane crashes, the buildings withstood them, and NIST admits that only a minimal amount of structure was taken out or damaged anyway, so they had to move on to the fires, and how they effected the steel.
Why don't you stop avoiding the question I keep asking you, and that is what in the NIST report, that was supposed to explain how these behemoths were felled completely in 15-20 seconds. (10 secs, according to the 9-11 Commission report, but we all know that report is lacking and full of shit)

Lets get to heart of the matter. Do you think you are capable of following along as we show you what the fuss has been all about?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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)

You are wrong again, Princess. They are the 707-120B stats and they are from your Wikipedia link:
"The first flight of the −120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb."
The 707 Dash had an even lower max take-off weight.

The 707-120 was the first production 707 variant, with a longer, wider fuselage, and greater wingspan than the Dash-80. The cabin had a full set of rectangular windows and could seat up to 179 passengers.[28] It was designed for transcontinental routes and often required a refueling stop on the North Atlantic. It had four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 turbojets, civil versions of the military J57, initially producing 13,000 lb (57.8 kN) with water injection. Maximum takeoff weight was 247,000 lb and first flight was on December 20, 1957. Major orders were the launch order for 20 707-121 aircraft by Pan American and an American Airlines order for 30 707-123 aircraft. The first revenue flight was on October 26, 1958.[29] 56 were built, plus 7 short body −138s; the last −120 was delivered to Western in May 1960.

The 707-320 Intercontinental is a stretched version of the turbojet-powered 707-120, initially powered by JT4A-3 or JT4A-5 turbojets producing 15,800 lb (70.1 kN) each (most eventually got 17,500 lb (78.4 kN) JT4A-11s). The interior allowed up to 189 passengers due to an 80-inch (2,000 mm) fuselage stretch ahead of the wing (from 138 ft 10 in (42.32 m) to 145 ft 6 in), with extensions to the fin and horizontal stabilizer extending the aircraft's length further.[30] The longer wing carried more fuel, increasing range by 1,600 miles (2,600 km) and allowing the aircraft to operate as true transoceanic aircraft. The wing modifications included outboard and inboard inserts, as well as a kink in the trailing edge to add area inboard.[16] Takeoff weight was increased to 302,000 lb (137,000 kg) initially and to 312,000 lb (142,000 kg) with the higher-rated JT4A's and centre section tanks. First flight was on January 11, 1958; 69 turbojet 707-320s were delivered through January 1963, the first passengers being carried (by Pan Am) in August 1959.

Paying attention helps to complete the picture, something you try very hard NOT to do.

Your 707-120 was discontinued by 1960.

The 707-320 continued production through the 1980's.

The WTC towers were in design in 1964, long after the demise of the 120, and in the heyday of the 320.

Which plane do you think they designed the building to withstand again?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Sagging trusses, the buildings being pulled in.......

Got any explanations for this other than what the official investigations have shown?

And you can't deny it because it is visible evidence. The buildings bowed inward.

Plus if I remember correctly there was someone on the 105th floor who reported to a 911 operator that floors below him had collapsed 20 minutes before the buildings came down.... Now I don't remember where I heard that and don't know how he could have known this but it is interesting....

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

What better theories would that be?

The ones that show NIST is wrong.

I don't have to prove that the official investigating authorities are correct, I accept their report.

Right you do. We keep asking you elaborate and show us what you base your belief on. Or don't you have anything that you can point to other then blind faith and obedience. BTW have you watched the movie "Compliance" yet? Don't worry it's not what you would call a "truther" movie..

You do not accept it and have zero proof that they are wrong.

I do not accept it. I have proof that they are wrong. The problem is that you try to say that you don't understand what we say about it, and you continue to believe what they say. This is text book ignorant. You don't even bother to try, but yet you ignorantly continue to say we have no proof.
I told you Ollie, don't keep asking us to post proof because when we always do, you admit you don't understand it, This is too bad for you, and you are a fucking ignorant jackass to continue.
We showed you,what we have, you say "I'm no engineer" or something to that effect, and then continue to bash that which you have no admitted to having no clue about.
Learn it, understand it, or STFU. As it stands you have no right to have an opinion.

You have opinion and conjecture. Not proof.

STFU you ignorant dufus. You don't know the meaning of your own words.

Show me one piece of det wire. Show me one beam cut by anything other than the torches used during cleanup. Show me a cooled pool of molten steel. Get us one whistle blower who was in on planting the explosives or covering up the investigation.... You got shit.

Fuck you again your ignorant asshole. You don't count in this debate. Your circular reasoning is out asshole.
You admit are too stupid to engage in this debate. Bye Bye. NEXT!

 

[PredFan]

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.

Again you can easily find problems with the NIST report. BUT no one has come up with a simpler or more logical explanation, so Occam's Razor does in fact apply.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center


Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson


ooops!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

The ones that show NIST is wrong.

Right you do. We keep asking you elaborate and show us what you base your belief on. Or don't you have anything that you can point to other then blind faith and obedience. BTW have you watched the movie "Compliance" yet? Don't worry it's not what you would call a "truther" movie..

I do not accept it. I have proof that they are wrong. The problem is that you try to say that you don't understand what we say about it, and you continue to believe what they say. This is text book ignorant. You don't even bother to try, but yet you ignorantly continue to say we have no proof.
I told you Ollie, don't keep asking us to post proof because when we always do, you admit you don't understand it, This is too bad for you, and you are a fucking ignorant jackass to continue.
We showed you,what we have, you say "I'm no engineer" or something to that effect, and then continue to bash that which you have no admitted to having no clue about.
Learn it, understand it, or STFU. As it stands you have no right to have an opinion.
STFU you ignorant dufus. You don't know the meaning of your own words.

Show me one piece of det wire. Show me one beam cut by anything other than the torches used during cleanup. Show me a cooled pool of molten steel. Get us one whistle blower who was in on planting the explosives or covering up the investigation.... You got shit.

Fuck you again your ignorant asshole. You don't count in this debate. Your circular reasoning is out asshole.
You admit are too stupid to engage in this debate. Bye Bye. NEXT!

Oh but I do count, because you have no proof and you can't answer my questions.
Do continue to rant, I rather enjoy it.....

 

[PredFan]

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.

What better theories would that be?
I don't have to prove that the official investigating authorities are correct, I accept their report. You do not accept it and have zero proof that they are wrong. You have opinion and conjecture. Not proof. Show me one piece of det wire. Show me one beam cut by anything other than the torches used during cleanup. Show me a cooled pool of molten steel. Get us one whistle blower who was in on planting the explosives or covering up the investigation.... You got shit.

Their whole theory is based on the fact that the NIST report isn't air-tight. It's relatively easy to point out inconsistancies. Heck, they even make many of them up, but my point is that their theories are even more improbable and if they spent 1/1000th of the effort debunking their own conspiracy theories as they do on the NIST, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Paulie]

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center


Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson


ooops!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jet fuel does not burn at steel melting temps. That's one of the good arguments from the CT crowd...the smoke was indicative of a fire burning relatively cool, and to argue that there was substantial jet fuel left after the initial explosions from impact is foolish. The ensuing fireballs was the combustion of the fuel. I was a firefighter in my younger days and I completed NJ certified fire school, so I would consider myself be somewhat credible in knowledge on this aspect.

I don't really care either way on this, I have no dog in this hunt. I have no idea why the towers collapsed and have no real theory on it...but to claim that it was because of jet fuel is naive.

 

[SAYIT]

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)

You are wrong again, Princess. They are the 707-120B stats and they are from your Wikipedia link:
"The first flight of the −120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb."
The 707 Dash had an even lower max take-off weight.

The 707-120 was the first production 707 variant, with a longer, wider fuselage, and greater wingspan than the Dash-80. The cabin had a full set of rectangular windows and could seat up to 179 passengers.[28] It was designed for transcontinental routes and often required a refueling stop on the North Atlantic. It had four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 turbojets, civil versions of the military J57, initially producing 13,000 lb (57.8 kN) with water injection. Maximum takeoff weight was 247,000 lb and first flight was on December 20, 1957. Major orders were the launch order for 20 707-121 aircraft by Pan American and an American Airlines order for 30 707-123 aircraft. The first revenue flight was on October 26, 1958.[29] 56 were built, plus 7 short body −138s; the last −120 was delivered to Western in May 1960.

The 707-320 Intercontinental is a stretched version of the turbojet-powered 707-120, initially powered by JT4A-3 or JT4A-5 turbojets producing 15,800 lb (70.1 kN) each (most eventually got 17,500 lb (78.4 kN) JT4A-11s). The interior allowed up to 189 passengers due to an 80-inch (2,000 mm) fuselage stretch ahead of the wing (from 138 ft 10 in (42.32 m) to 145 ft 6 in), with extensions to the fin and horizontal stabilizer extending the aircraft's length further.[30] The longer wing carried more fuel, increasing range by 1,600 miles (2,600 km) and allowing the aircraft to operate as true transoceanic aircraft. The wing modifications included outboard and inboard inserts, as well as a kink in the trailing edge to add area inboard.[16] Takeoff weight was increased to 302,000 lb (137,000 kg) initially and to 312,000 lb (142,000 kg) with the higher-rated JT4A's and centre section tanks. First flight was on January 11, 1958; 69 turbojet 707-320s were delivered through January 1963, the first passengers being carried (by Pan Am) in August 1959.

Paying attention helps to complete the picture, something you try very hard NOT to do.

Your 707-120 was discontinued by 1960.

The 707-320 continued production through the 1980's.

The WTC towers were in design in 1964, long after the demise of the 120, and in the heyday of the 320.

Which plane do you think they designed the building to withstand again?

Once more for the belligerently ignorant:
The first flight of the −[707]-120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb (117,025 kg) for both the long and short body versions.
I believe it was your brain that was discontinued in 1960 but this conversation would go better if we could stop guessing and judge the actual facts. Did you find a link to that study?

 

[GuyPinestra]

You are wrong again, Princess. They are the 707-120B stats and they are from your Wikipedia link:
"The first flight of the −120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb."
The 707 Dash had an even lower max take-off weight.

The 707-320 Intercontinental is a stretched version of the turbojet-powered 707-120, initially powered by JT4A-3 or JT4A-5 turbojets producing 15,800 lb (70.1 kN) each (most eventually got 17,500 lb (78.4 kN) JT4A-11s). The interior allowed up to 189 passengers due to an 80-inch (2,000 mm) fuselage stretch ahead of the wing (from 138 ft 10 in (42.32 m) to 145 ft 6 in), with extensions to the fin and horizontal stabilizer extending the aircraft's length further.[30] The longer wing carried more fuel, increasing range by 1,600 miles (2,600 km) and allowing the aircraft to operate as true transoceanic aircraft. The wing modifications included outboard and inboard inserts, as well as a kink in the trailing edge to add area inboard.[16] Takeoff weight was increased to 302,000 lb (137,000 kg) initially and to 312,000 lb (142,000 kg) with the higher-rated JT4A's and centre section tanks. First flight was on January 11, 1958; 69 turbojet 707-320s were delivered through January 1963, the first passengers being carried (by Pan Am) in August 1959.

Paying attention helps to complete the picture, something you try very hard NOT to do.

Your 707-120 was discontinued by 1960.

The 707-320 continued production through the 1980's.

The WTC towers were in design in 1964, long after the demise of the 120, and in the heyday of the 320.

Which plane do you think they designed the building to withstand again?

Once more for the belligerently ignorant:
The first flight of the −[707]-120B was on June 22, 1960 and American carried the first passengers in March 1961; the last delivery was to American in April 1969. Maximum weight was 258,000 lb (117,025 kg) for both the long and short body versions.
I believe it was your brain that was discontinued in 1960 but this conversation would go better if we could stop guessing and judge the actual facts. Did you find a link to that study?

Ah, the 120B. My previous statement was based on the 120.

The 707-120 was the first production 707 variant, with a longer, wider fuselage, and greater wingspan than the Dash-80. The cabin had a full set of rectangular windows and could seat up to 179 passengers.[28] It was designed for transcontinental routes and often required a refueling stop on the North Atlantic. It had four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 turbojets, civil versions of the military J57, initially producing 13,000 lb (57.8 kN) with water injection. Maximum takeoff weight was 247,000 lb and first flight was on December 20, 1957. Major orders were the launch order for 20 707-121 aircraft by Pan American and an American Airlines order for 30 707-123 aircraft. The first revenue flight was on October 26, 1958.[29] 56 were built, plus 7 short body −138s; the last −120 was delivered to Western in May 1960.

It seems BOTH planes were in production simultaneously, then. But your assertion that the 120B is the plane they designed for when the 320 was in higher production AND capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight sounds a bit ludicrous to me, considering that NY/NJ airports handled the VAST majority of those flights.

And fuck your link, you don't provide them, neither will I.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

NAE Website - Reflections on the World Trade Center


Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson


ooops!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jet fuel does not burn at steel melting temps. That's one of the good arguments from the CT crowd...the smoke was indicative of a fire burning relatively cool, and to argue that there was substantial jet fuel left after the initial explosions from impact is foolish. The ensuing fireballs was the combustion of the fuel. I was a firefighter in my younger days and I completed NJ certified fire school, so I would consider myself be somewhat credible in knowledge on this aspect.

I don't really care either way on this, I have no dog in this hunt. I have no idea why the towers collapsed and have no real theory on it...but to claim that it was because of jet fuel is naive.

But it is only the truthers who claim that steel melted........And what all did those fireballs set on fire?