Mathematician to Refute Official Theory of WTC Destruction at Upcoming Conference

[Rigby5]

It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

That is not different at all.
A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

And it does not matter.
The building codes clearly state all skyscrapers MUST easily be able to withstand a plane impact, because it is INEVITABLE!
There is absolutely no way any rational person could build a building that tall and expect it to not eventually get hit by a plane.
Since this already happened to the Empire State building, in 1945, they already were warned.
And they already claimed it was NO PROBLEM.

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

 

[Faun]

No high rise building has ever survive a direct hit from a jet airline

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is not different at all

A fire extinguished in 40 minutes is not different at all than an unextingushed fire left to rage?

Uh....what?

One can't have an honest discussion with someone saying such absurd things.

Still waiting on those 5 links.

 

[Rigby5]

And THAT is the problem that allows for an argument, because according to physiscs, the fuel should have all pretty much vaporized in less than a minute or so.

False, and i have to think you just made that up.

That is foolish.
Didn't you see the video?
The fuel wash went right through the building, out the other side, and burned up before hitting the ground.
I am not going to look up the sources again, because you should know yourself that it is not like fuel was pumped on to the ground. It was all mixed with air and ignited at once.
So it should not have burned for so long.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

Did you already forget the claim you made? You said many,many buildings have survived direct hits like the ones on 9/11.

Links?

By the way,the link you just provided -- no, that wasnt "worse".

 

[Rigby5]

The IMPACT had NOTHING to do with either tower collapse.
In fact, the impacts essentially did no structural damage, at all.

100% false. As anyone can read for themselves in the report, or on websites like popular mechanics, both impacts removed the lateral supports to the perimeter columns, weakening the structures and contributing to sagging floors.

Are you just kind of making this up as you go?

That is totally a lie.
Not a single structural member was damaged by the impacts.
And the main structural support is provided by the central core, not the perimeter columns.
A plane would have to hit a corner to knock out a perimeter column, which neither plane did.
And if there had been enough damage to cause a collapse, it could have collapsed instantly.
Why then did it take so long?

 

[Faun]

The problem is that the building was required to be fire proof and airplane crash proof.
In theory it was.
So clearly it was not the plane, gravity, or heat that caused the fall.
However, unusual combinations, such as where the crash ripped off the heat shielding, etc., is the current theory.

Umm, no, the buildings were never designed to withstand an impact from planes that large. That they went down is not much of a surpise.

Total lie.
All skyscrapers have ALWAYS been required to take an impact far greater than twice the largest plane, and survive.
The IMPACT had NOTHING to do with either tower collapse.
In fact, the impacts essentially did no structural damage, at all.

What caused the collapse, according to the accepted theory, is that it was entirely and completely just the prolonged heat from all the combustion.
And THAT is the problem that allows for an argument, because according to physiscs, the fuel should have all pretty much vaporized in less than a minute or so.
Leaving the question of why the fire continued for so long?
Were the offices not up to fire code?
Were there massive filing cabinets of paper?
THAT is what the contention is about.

The one things the impact were claimed to have damaged, was the sprinkler system.

Nope, not a lie at all.

When the Twin Towers Fell

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.​

... you should learn the facts before you spew your bullshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fuel wash went right through the building, out the other side, and burned up before hitting the ground.

Not all of it. And it burned quickly because it was tossed into the air. Light a 5 gallon bucket of gas on fire, and sit there and watch for a while , as it will take a while to burn. Now throw the same amount of gas into the air over a fire. It will all burn very quickly.

This is because,in the second case, more gasoline molecules have access to oxygen, which is required for combustion. That's why the gasoline under the surface in the bucket is NOT burning.

This is pretty basic stuff, and you are saying some very dumb things.

 

[Faun]

And THAT is the problem that allows for an argument, because according to physiscs, the fuel should have all pretty much vaporized in less than a minute or so.

False, and i have to think you just made that up.

He makes up a lot of his own shit out of convenience. Like claiming it's a requirement to design skyscrapers to withstand the a
Impact of a plane twice the size as the largest plane.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is totally a lie.
Not a single structural member was damaged by the impacts.

100% false. On the face of each tower at the impact, outer structural supports were damaged and had parts removed entirely. Anyone can literally look at any photo taken that day and see this. Look at the large black holes that allow you to see into the building. Then look at a schematic showings the supports that are now missing.

Also,lateral supports were removed by the impact, contributing to sagging floors and easing the progressive collapse.

Are you done making shit up? You're really taking a beating.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He makes up a lot of his own shit out of convenience.

Either that, or he is just reguritating what some lying truther blogged that one time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why then did it take so long?

Because the sagging floors, exacerbated by missing structural support and a vey hot fire, initiated a progressive collapse, once the weakened structural support could not keep them from sagging further. You can watch the top of the tower lean and sag the compromised side as the collapse began.

Any child can look this up. Why haven't you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

That is not different at all.
A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

And it does not matter.
The building codes clearly state all skyscrapers MUST easily be able to withstand a plane impact, because it is INEVITABLE!
There is absolutely no way any rational person could build a building that tall and expect it to not eventually get hit by a plane.
Since this already happened to the Empire State building, in 1945, they already were warned.
And they already claimed it was NO PROBLEM.

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

B-24

Maximum weight, about 33,000 lbs.
Maximum speed under 300 mph.
Maximum fuel about 1600 gallons.

Boeing 767

Operating empty weight, 176,000 lbs.

Maximum speed over 500 mph.
Maximum fuel about 16000 gallons.​

 

[Faun]

It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

That is not different at all.
A massive B-24 bomber has about the same speed, weight, energy, and fuel of a modern passenger plane.
They both travel about 250 mph.

And it does not matter.
The building codes clearly state all skyscrapers MUST easily be able to withstand a plane impact, because it is INEVITABLE!
There is absolutely no way any rational person could build a building that tall and expect it to not eventually get hit by a plane.
Since this already happened to the Empire State building, in 1945, they already were warned.
And they already claimed it was NO PROBLEM.

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

What utter bullshit. You can't even get the type of plane right. It was a B-25, not a B-24. But more saliently, the two planes are not comparable. The commercial flights held almost 17,000 gallons of jet fuel and were fueled to capacity in preparation for cross country flights, the B-25 was coming in to land and had already burned most of its fuel. 767's have a wing span nearly 100 feet wider than a B-25 and 100 feet longer. They're big enough to carry more than 10 times the number of passengers and their top speeds are double that of a B-25. Even worse for your delusions is that B-25 was traveling at landing speed as it unintentionally flew into the Empire State Building; compared to the 2 767's on 9.11, which were flown at top speeds intentionally to inflict as much damage as possible -- even tilting upon impact to strike as many floors as possible.

You trufers are absolutely fucking nuts.

 

[Rigby5]

No high rise building has ever survive a direct hit from a jet airline

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.

Egad, another stupid lie you just made up on the spot.

Hey professor....all else being equal....what happens to a plane's speed, as it descends? Take your time.

 

[Rigby5]

And as far as fires, many skyscrapers survived far worse.
Dubai Inferno: 5 of History's Worst Skyscraper Fires

Did you already forget the claim you made? You said many,many buildings have survived direct hits like the ones on 9/11.

Links?

By the way,the link you just provided -- no, that wasnt "worse".

The link provided was fires that were much worse, in that more of the building was on fire, and for a longer time.

But I have not had time to find other plane collisions yet.
I am just working from memory back when this was originally discussed.

But obviously the collision impact did not bring either building down.
Otherwise they would have come down instantly.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The link provided was fires that were much worse, in that more of the building was on fire, and for a longer time.

And your link was not that. Furthermore, the compromised structural integrity due to the impacts of jetliners contributed to the collapses on 9/11. So your comparison is not a good one anyway.

 

[Faun]

No high rise building has ever survive a direct hit from a jet airline

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

Seriously, you didn't just try to make that comparison? A fully fueled 767 with close to 17,000 gallons of jet fuel, flying at 4 to 5 hundred MPH ... with a much smaller aircraft, little fuel remaining, and flying at maybe 200 MPH.

You can't fly a Boeing 767 at 500 mph that low. It can only achieve those speed at very high altitudes.
And although a B-24 only has a 3,614 US gal fuel capacity, it would be high test gasoline instead of jp oil, so would burn much hotter and faster.
But I see the 767 has a 300,000 lb weight, compared to only 65,000 pounds of the B-24.
So the impact had almost 5 times the energy.

The B-25 had exhausted most of it's fuel while the 767's were fully fuelled.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But obviously the collision impact did not bring either building down.

Right, the results of it did.