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

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Ignoring my link to what was really said about the the planes crashing?

 

[Mr. Jones]

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?

What are you hoping to gain or prove with this. The fact is the towers were hit with a comparable aircraft, that were not fully loaded with fuel. The jetfuel/kerosene was consumed in the fireballs. The buildings still stood. NIST admits only minimal structure was taken out.
That leaves the fires as the main reason, and we've tried to explain to you how that theory is lacking but you people evade the points with worn out talking points and ols material.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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?

It was all over the place that the steel melted, then you all changed your tune when that was proved bogus, it wasn't us that started that line of BS. Again it is up to you to explain the fire and what it did. It is the theory that you back up, so show why we should believe it. We've already explained and shown why we have our positions, and you claim you don't understand them so why are you continuing with this debate?
You can
t show we are wrong by your admitting to not understanding what we're talking about about so where are you trying to go with this?

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..."
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Ignoring my link to what was really said about the the planes crashing?

Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.

 

[Mr. Jones]

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.

Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..."
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.

Again in the days and weeks following the attacks, it was mentioned that the steel must have melted due to the "horrific" fires caused by the "jetfuel". The propagandists and the crowd of ignorant followers changed that tune and now you all say that it merely weakened, but then you must still answer for the way the steel was effected, how it would "creep" along slowly, and if it even failed, would produce a halting, staggered partial collapse.
This is what you do not even come close to touching. Both you and Ollie have claimed ignorance on these matters, so if you don't know shit about what is being discussed, how can you even participate in any rational debate?

Weakening is no better of an excuse, and does not absolve any responsibility in trying to explain what I mentioned above. Now are you capable of engaging in a debate regarding this or not?

 

[SAYIT]

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?

What are you hoping to gain or prove with this. The fact is the towers were hit with a comparable aircraft, that were not fully loaded with fuel. The jetfuel/kerosene was consumed in the fireballs. The buildings still stood. NIST admits only minimal structure was taken out.

For one thing, the incessant lying by you 9/11 CTs proves your "cause" is bogus. You'll notice GuyPinhead called me a liar and then disappeared when it was he who was lying.
For another the Towers withstood the impact of even the significantly larger, heavier aircraft than the now 50 year old study used. What they did not survive was the combination of the impact and the fires. There is no evidence of rigging for demo, none for a controlled demo, no evidence of explosives and no whistle blowers. Nothing but your stubbornness, imagination and medacity.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..."
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.

Talk about 'hyperbole-laden'...

'Raging' fires.... Nope, not when a woman can stand there and stick her mug out of the hole the plane created.

"Unimaginable' temperatures.... Only if you lack all trace of imagination. The smoke from the fires indicated low temperatures, in the 650-750 C range.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..."
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.

Again in the days and weeks following the attacks, it was mentioned that the steel must have melted due to the "horrific" fires caused by the "jetfuel". The propagandists and the crowd of ignorant followers changed that tune and now you all say that it merely weakened, but then you must still answer for the way the steel was effected, how it would "creep" along slowly, and if it even failed, would produce a halting, staggered partial collapse.
This is what you do not even come close to touching. Both you and Ollie have claimed ignorance on these matters, so if you don't know shit about what is being discussed, how can you even participate in any rational debate?

Weakening is no better of an excuse, and does not absolve any responsibility in trying to explain what I mentioned above. Now are you capable of engaging in a debate regarding this or not?

Excuse? Absolution? WTF is wrong with you?
What you heard in the days and weeks following 9/11 was speculation. The NIST report says nothing about melted steel and explains how and why the Towers fell.
I'm not going to play amateur physicist or Internet engineer with you, Princess.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

What are you hoping to gain or prove with this. The fact is the towers were hit with a comparable aircraft, that were not fully loaded with fuel. The jetfuel/kerosene was consumed in the fireballs. The buildings still stood. NIST admits only minimal structure was taken out.

For one thing, the incessant lying by you 9/11 CTs proves your "cause" is bogus. You'll notice GuyPinhead called me a liar and then disappeared when it was he who was lying.
For another the Towers withstood the impact of even the significantly larger, heavier aircraft than the now 50 year old study used. What they did not survive combination of the impact and the fires. There is no evidence of rigging for demo, none for a controlled demo, no evidence of explosives and no whistle blowers. Nothing but your stubbornness, imagination and medacity.

Yo BITCH, I haven't gone ANYWHERE, you lying fucktard! Look back through the last 2 pages, you cretinous piece of shit, I've answered EVERY bullshit statement you've made.

Your ridiculous assertion that the 120-B is the plane they designed for is disproven by the fact that the 320 was in higher production AND the ONLY plane at the time capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight.

Fucking idiot!

 

[SAYIT]

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.

So you are just guessing at which 707 they used in the study and at which plane was in higher production at the time. Even the early 707-320s were 20% lighter than the 767 and, according to the lead structural engineer for the Towers, the study was based on a slow-moving 707 looking for an airport in the fog, so your assumption that increased speed would make up for the lack of weight is also shot to hell. Finally, it wasn't the impact alone that brought down the Towers and it wasn't the fires alone either. It was both.

 

[SAYIT]

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?

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


I was specific, Princess. That you failed to "pay attention to the complete picture" is typical of the one-eyed method employed by you 9/11 CTs. You only see half the picture.
BTW, you twice called me liar today and were wrong both times.
Your failure to apologize was expected.

 

[SAYIT]

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

Ignoring my link to what was really said about the the planes crashing?

Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.

Really? How about the reflections of the Tower's lead structural engineer. You really should open both eyes, Princess.
Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson
The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..."
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.

Talk about 'hyperbole-laden'...

'Raging' fires.... Nope, not when a woman can stand there and stick her mug out of the hole the plane created.

"Unimaginable' temperatures.... Only if you lack all trace of imagination. The smoke from the fires indicated low temperatures, in the 650-750 C range.

The comments are those of the Tower's lead structural engineer. How do they differ than Skilling's description of the now 50 year old study of a plane crash fire as "horrendous?"
What you still don't have is any evidence of rigging for demo, none of explosives, none that anything other those airliners attacked the Towers and none of a conspiracy and cover-up. In short, you got nuttin'.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Ignoring my link to what was really said about the the planes crashing?

Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.

Really? How about the reflections of the Tower's lead structural engineer. You really should open both eyes, Princess.
Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson
The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

The "lead structural engineer"?

As an "up-and-coming engineer", Robertson was selected by Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson (WSHJ) to participate in the design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (1966–1971), his first high rise construction.

I noticed these two highlighted things right away, LIAR.

Robertson was hired by the guy I quoted, Skilling.

WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.

Why do you tell lies that are so EASY to disprove?

 

[SAYIT]

What are you hoping to gain or prove with this. The fact is the towers were hit with a comparable aircraft, that were not fully loaded with fuel. The jetfuel/kerosene was consumed in the fireballs. The buildings still stood. NIST admits only minimal structure was taken out.

For one thing, the incessant lying by you 9/11 CTs proves your "cause" is bogus. You'll notice GuyPinhead called me a liar and then disappeared when it was he who was lying.
For another the Towers withstood the impact of even the significantly larger, heavier aircraft than the now 50 year old study used. What they did not survive combination of the impact and the fires. There is no evidence of rigging for demo, none for a controlled demo, no evidence of explosives and no whistle blowers. Nothing but your stubbornness, imagination and medacity.

Yo BITCH, I haven't gone ANYWHERE, you lying fucktard! Look back through the last 2 pages, you cretinous piece of shit, I've answered EVERY bullshit statement you've made.

Your ridiculous assertion that the 120-B is the plane they designed for is disproven by the fact that the 320 was in higher production AND the ONLY plane at the time capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight.

Fucking idiot!

You offer nothing which proves the 320 was in higher production and none which proves that the 320 was used in the study. You just do a lot of assuming. What you ignore is the fact that even the early 320s had a load limit 20% lighter than the 767 and, according to the lead structural engineer for the Towers, was presumed to be a slow-moving 707 looking for an airport in the fog, so your assumption that increased speed would make up for the lack of weight is also shot to hell. Finally, it wasn't the impact alone that brought down the Towers and it wasn't the fires alone either. It was both.

 

[SAYIT]

Nope, but I give more credence to DeMartini and Skilling, since they were involved firsthand with the design and construction and aren't speaking based on suppositions.

Really? How about the reflections of the Tower's lead structural engineer. You really should open both eyes, Princess.
Reflections on the World Trade Center
Author: Leslie E. Robertson
The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

The "lead structural engineer"?

As an "up-and-coming engineer", Robertson was selected by Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson (WSHJ) to participate in the design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (1966–1971), his first high rise construction.

I noticed these two highlighted things right away, LIAR.
Robertson was hired by the guy I quoted, Skilling.
WTC was Robertson's FIRST high rise.
Why do you tell lies that are so EASY to disprove?

What lies have I posted, Princess?
I copied this directly from the article:
Author: Leslie E. Robertson
The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

 

[GuyPinestra]

For one thing, the incessant lying by you 9/11 CTs proves your "cause" is bogus. You'll notice GuyPinhead called me a liar and then disappeared when it was he who was lying.
For another the Towers withstood the impact of even the significantly larger, heavier aircraft than the now 50 year old study used. What they did not survive combination of the impact and the fires. There is no evidence of rigging for demo, none for a controlled demo, no evidence of explosives and no whistle blowers. Nothing but your stubbornness, imagination and medacity.

Yo BITCH, I haven't gone ANYWHERE, you lying fucktard! Look back through the last 2 pages, you cretinous piece of shit, I've answered EVERY bullshit statement you've made.

Your ridiculous assertion that the 120-B is the plane they designed for is disproven by the fact that the 320 was in higher production AND the ONLY plane at the time capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight.

Fucking idiot!

You offer nothing which proves the 320 was in higher production and none which proves that the 320 was used in the study. You just do a lot of assuming. What you ignore is the fact that even the early 320s had a load limit 20% lighter than the 767 and, according to the lead structural engineer for the Towers, was presumed to be a slow-moving 707 looking for an airport in the fog, so your assumption that increased speed would make up for the lack of weight is also shot to hell. Finally, it wasn't the impact alone that brought down the Towers and it wasn't the fires alone either. It was both.

Because it fits your narrative you insist the designs were done based on the smaller, lighter aircraft even though the larger, heavier one was the ONLY one capable of making a nonstop trans-Atlantic flight, flown out of and into NY/NJ airports.

You STILL claim Robertson was the "lead structural engineer" even though he was a green pea new hire and the WTC was his FIRST high rise.

You are dismissed, LIAR.

 

[PredFan]

If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?

 

[SAYIT]

Yo BITCH, I haven't gone ANYWHERE, you lying fucktard! Look back through the last 2 pages, you cretinous piece of shit, I've answered EVERY bullshit statement you've made.

Your ridiculous assertion that the 120-B is the plane they designed for is disproven by the fact that the 320 was in higher production AND the ONLY plane at the time capable of non-stop trans-Atlantic flight.

Fucking idiot!

You offer nothing which proves the 320 was in higher production and none which proves that the 320 was used in the study. You just do a lot of assuming. What you ignore is the fact that even the early 320s had a load limit 20% lighter than the 767 and, according to the lead structural engineer for the Towers, was presumed to be a slow-moving 707 looking for an airport in the fog, so your assumption that increased speed would make up for the lack of weight is also shot to hell. Finally, it wasn't the impact alone that brought down the Towers and it wasn't the fires alone either. It was both.

Because it fits your narrative you insist the designs were done based on the smaller, lighter aircraft even though the larger, heavier one was the ONLY one capable of making a nonstop trans-Atlantic flight, flown out of and into NY/NJ airports.

You STILL claim Robertson was the "lead structural engineer" even though he was a green pea new hire and the WTC was his FIRST high rise.

You are dismissed, LIAR.

Posting directly from his article does not make me a liar, Jackass, and even assuming the heavier 707 was used in the study - and you offer no proof of such or that it was in greater production or use - the weight of the 707-320 of the time was still 20% lighter than the 767.
The study, according to Robertson, assumed a slow-moving 707, further diminishing its impact and your argument.