Mathematician to Refute Official Theory of WTC Destruction at Upcoming Conference

[Faun]

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.

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

You have not understood.
The point of the Empire State crash is that the building codes after that required building to be able to take a crash, as they were inevitable.

And you keep saying the planes were put into a dive for max speed, for max damage, and that makes no sense.
The faster the plane goes, the more the fuel just spews out the other side, without causing any damage.
The more damage to the building, the slower you would want the plane to be flying.
It is the heat that caused the damage, not the impact.

And the more damage the plane does to the structure. Which is why the hit the towers at a roughly 40° angle -- in order to damage as many floors as possible.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

B-25 is much smaller than a B-24
It does not have anywhere near the kinetic force of a modern jetliner

A small prop plane with little fuel and low speed -- compared to a modern day large commercial jet with a shitload of jet fuel, flying at high speed and at an angle to maximize damage. Yeah, that's practically the same thing.

Again that is a lie.
The WTC was started in 1969, so the building codes would have at least required the towers to be able to safely withstand a crash of twice the largest plane in existence in 1969.

 

[Rigby5]

Here are pilots discussing that the speed calculations are impossible.

{...
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
...}

LOLOL

You deny being a truther but you lie like one, you take up the positions of one, and here you are quoting conspiracy sites like one.

You are the one trying to label in order to avoid the details being discussed.

Is Dwain Deets a retired Senior Executive at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, or not?

Is he right that the calculated speeds are impossible, or not?
It is likely two rookies could have piloted the 2 craft as well as they did?

Your responses so far are are far less than convincing.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

You have not understood.
The point of the Empire State crash is that the building codes after that required building to be able to take a crash, as they were inevitable.

And you keep saying the planes were put into a dive for max speed, for max damage, and that makes no sense.
The faster the plane goes, the more the fuel just spews out the other side, without causing any damage.
The more damage to the building, the slower you would want the plane to be flying.
It is the heat that caused the damage, not the impact.

And the more damage the plane does to the structure. Which is why the hit the towers at a roughly 40° angle -- in order to damage as many floors as possible.

I do not believe 40 degrees in the least.
First of all, that is not what the angle of descent looked like to me, and in fact they appeared to me to be more like level flight.
And second is that it is nearly impossible to hit a target at that angle.
It is not just that it is not designed for such speeds and that pilot skill would not have been nearly up to it, but that the instruments are essentially useless at that steep of a dive. Those planes are not at all built for an descent angle of 40 degrees.

Here is a more accurate calcuation of angle of impact and angle of descent.
{...
The NTSB Radar Data Report for Flight 175 has the aircraft crossing the Hudson River about 500 meters above the Robert E. Wagner Jr. Park, at a location about 350 meters NW of Castle Clinton in Battery Park. This implies a trajectory just prior to impact that makes a lateral approach angle that is about 14 degrees clockwise of the structural north of WTC 2.
This WTC 2 impact trajectory appears to agree well with NIST's estimate of 15 +/- 2 degrees for this angle.
...}

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Let us see the link to your fantasy.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact.
There is no reason at all to suspect that would be at all difficult.
And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed.
You can not achieve high speed with a 767 in dense low altitude atmosphere.
And they would not have been trying for maximum speed because the most important thing would have been to hit the target.
And these were supposed to be student pilots who had only gone up once or twice.

And you have no reading comprehension at all.
I clearly states several times that I do not believe the WTC tower collapses were fake.
It is just that it is not hard to sympathize with those considering conspiracies because the building were NOT supposed to be able to collapse.

The single most significant reason why they did collapse was likely the damage to the sprinkler system.
Second was the thermal insulation on the beams was damaged or improperly applied in the first place.

Once again, where is your link to this fantasy of yours?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

You have not understood.
The point of the Empire State crash is that the building codes after that required building to be able to take a crash, as they were inevitable.

And you keep saying the planes were put into a dive for max speed, for max damage, and that makes no sense.
The faster the plane goes, the more the fuel just spews out the other side, without causing any damage.
The more damage to the building, the slower you would want the plane to be flying.
It is the heat that caused the damage, not the impact.

Link to your fantasy?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

B-25 is much smaller than a B-24
It does not have anywhere near the kinetic force of a modern jetliner

A small prop plane with little fuel and low speed -- compared to a modern day large commercial jet with a shitload of jet fuel, flying at high speed and at an angle to maximize damage. Yeah, that's practically the same thing.

Again that is a lie.
The WTC was started in 1969, so the building codes would have at least required the towers to be able to safely withstand a crash of twice the largest plane in existence in 1969.

Four times now you have made a claim and provided no link. Why is that?

How about because it does not exist?

The building codes were designed for EARTHQUAKES, not airplanes!

How building design changed after 9/11

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

You have not understood.
The point of the Empire State crash is that the building codes after that required building to be able to take a crash, as they were inevitable.

And you keep saying the planes were put into a dive for max speed, for max damage, and that makes no sense.
The faster the plane goes, the more the fuel just spews out the other side, without causing any damage.
The more damage to the building, the slower you would want the plane to be flying.
It is the heat that caused the damage, not the impact.

And the more damage the plane does to the structure. Which is why the hit the towers at a roughly 40° angle -- in order to damage as many floors as possible.

I do not believe 40 degrees in the least.
First of all, that is not what the angle of descent looked like to me, and in fact they appeared to me to be more like level flight.
And second is that it is nearly impossible to hit a target at that angle.
It is not just that it is not designed for such speeds and that pilot skill would not have been nearly up to it, but that the instruments are essentially useless at that steep of a dive. Those planes are not at all built for an descent angle of 40 degrees.

Here is a more accurate calcuation of angle of impact and angle of descent.
{...
The NTSB Radar Data Report for Flight 175 has the aircraft crossing the Hudson River about 500 meters above the Robert E. Wagner Jr. Park, at a location about 350 meters NW of Castle Clinton in Battery Park. This implies a trajectory just prior to impact that makes a lateral approach angle that is about 14 degrees clockwise of the structural north of WTC 2.
This WTC 2 impact trajectory appears to agree well with NIST's estimate of 15 +/- 2 degrees for this angle.
...}

It was 40 degree of roll around the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, moron! It was not 40 degrees to the horizon or 40 degrees azimuth to true north!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

BTW, the latest status I can find on your 9/11 grandy jury is that it isn't happening, and that came from a "truther website".

What you got for us, conspiracy nuts?

 

[Rigby5]

Good point, but you were saying it was the impact and not the fuel.
I was the person saying it was the fuel, not the impact.

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

You have not understood.
The point of the Empire State crash is that the building codes after that required building to be able to take a crash, as they were inevitable.

And you keep saying the planes were put into a dive for max speed, for max damage, and that makes no sense.
The faster the plane goes, the more the fuel just spews out the other side, without causing any damage.
The more damage to the building, the slower you would want the plane to be flying.
It is the heat that caused the damage, not the impact.

And the more damage the plane does to the structure. Which is why the hit the towers at a roughly 40° angle -- in order to damage as many floors as possible.

I do not believe 40 degrees in the least.
First of all, that is not what the angle of descent looked like to me, and in fact they appeared to me to be more like level flight.
And second is that it is nearly impossible to hit a target at that angle.
It is not just that it is not designed for such speeds and that pilot skill would not have been nearly up to it, but that the instruments are essentially useless at that steep of a dive. Those planes are not at all built for an descent angle of 40 degrees.

Here is a more accurate calcuation of angle of impact and angle of descent.
{...
The NTSB Radar Data Report for Flight 175 has the aircraft crossing the Hudson River about 500 meters above the Robert E. Wagner Jr. Park, at a location about 350 meters NW of Castle Clinton in Battery Park. This implies a trajectory just prior to impact that makes a lateral approach angle that is about 14 degrees clockwise of the structural north of WTC 2.
This WTC 2 impact trajectory appears to agree well with NIST's estimate of 15 +/- 2 degrees for this angle.
...}

It was 40 degree of roll around the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, moron! It was not 40 degrees to the horizon or 40 degrees azimuth to true north!

That makes no sense because the wings are not going to do any additional damage because the heavy engines are so close to the body. And these were rookies, not experienced pilots.

According to the actual reports, the roll was only 20 degrees.

How 9/11 Changed the Way We Build and Stay Safe

 

[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

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.

The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact.
There is no reason at all to suspect that would be at all difficult.
And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed.
You can not achieve high speed with a 767 in dense low altitude atmosphere.
And they would not have been trying for maximum speed because the most important thing would have been to hit the target.
And these were supposed to be student pilots who had only gone up once or twice.

And you have no reading comprehension at all.
I clearly states several times that I do not believe the WTC tower collapses were fake.
It is just that it is not hard to sympathize with those considering conspiracies because the building were NOT supposed to be able to collapse.

The single most significant reason why they did collapse was likely the damage to the sprinkler system.
Second was the thermal insulation on the beams was damaged or improperly applied in the first place.

Once again, where is your link to this fantasy of yours?

Most NY building codes are NOT online, and it takes a long time to read through them.
But it should be obvious.
The 1945 plane collision was not ignored.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Yep. 23,000 gallons of fuel, at 8 pounds per gallon, is 184,000 pounds of fuel.

A B-25 weighs 20,300 pounds.

So just the fuel in each plane weighed more than eight B-25s.

No, the take off weight of a B-25, is more like 35,000 pounds, and none of the 767 fuel transferred any kinetic energy because as a liquid, it passed right through the building.

Did cause some nasty fires though
So nasty that people preferred to jump rather than face them
Didn’t happen in the Empire State Building

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

The point is that after the 1945 crash, all buildings were required to be able to withstand a plane impact.
There is no reason at all to suspect that would be at all difficult.
And the 767 would have been flying about the same speed.
You can not achieve high speed with a 767 in dense low altitude atmosphere.
And they would not have been trying for maximum speed because the most important thing would have been to hit the target.
And these were supposed to be student pilots who had only gone up once or twice.

And you have no reading comprehension at all.
I clearly states several times that I do not believe the WTC tower collapses were fake.
It is just that it is not hard to sympathize with those considering conspiracies because the building were NOT supposed to be able to collapse.

The single most significant reason why they did collapse was likely the damage to the sprinkler system.
Second was the thermal insulation on the beams was damaged or improperly applied in the first place.

Once again, where is your link to this fantasy of yours?

Most NY building codes are NOT online, and it takes a long time to read through them.
But it should be obvious.
The 1945 plane collision was not ignored.

So, you admit that it was simply made up. Thank you for admitting the lie.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It was both the impact and the fuel. The impact by the 767's was designed to produce maximum damage while carrying a lot of fuel; compared to a much smaller aircraft carrying minimal fuel, traveling considerably slower, and accidentally crashing into the Empire State building. Plus the 767's were chosen because they were larger than the 707 the Twin Towers were designed to withstand.

Comparing those crashes and questioning why the Twin Towers fell while the Empire State building didn't is beyond ludicrous.

You have not understood.
The point of the Empire State crash is that the building codes after that required building to be able to take a crash, as they were inevitable.

And you keep saying the planes were put into a dive for max speed, for max damage, and that makes no sense.
The faster the plane goes, the more the fuel just spews out the other side, without causing any damage.
The more damage to the building, the slower you would want the plane to be flying.
It is the heat that caused the damage, not the impact.

And the more damage the plane does to the structure. Which is why the hit the towers at a roughly 40° angle -- in order to damage as many floors as possible.

I do not believe 40 degrees in the least.
First of all, that is not what the angle of descent looked like to me, and in fact they appeared to me to be more like level flight.
And second is that it is nearly impossible to hit a target at that angle.
It is not just that it is not designed for such speeds and that pilot skill would not have been nearly up to it, but that the instruments are essentially useless at that steep of a dive. Those planes are not at all built for an descent angle of 40 degrees.

Here is a more accurate calcuation of angle of impact and angle of descent.
{...
The NTSB Radar Data Report for Flight 175 has the aircraft crossing the Hudson River about 500 meters above the Robert E. Wagner Jr. Park, at a location about 350 meters NW of Castle Clinton in Battery Park. This implies a trajectory just prior to impact that makes a lateral approach angle that is about 14 degrees clockwise of the structural north of WTC 2.
This WTC 2 impact trajectory appears to agree well with NIST's estimate of 15 +/- 2 degrees for this angle.
...}

It was 40 degree of roll around the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, moron! It was not 40 degrees to the horizon or 40 degrees azimuth to true north!

That makes no sense because the wings are not going to do any additional damage because the heavy engines are so close to the body. And these were rookies, not experienced pilots.

According to the actual reports, the roll was only 20 degrees.

How 9/11 Changed the Way We Build and Stay Safe

Thank you for proving your self wrong. Look at the image! Those are steel beams in the outside structure of the building that are missing.

That's the thing about conspiracy nuts! If you give them enough time and ask the right questions, they always manage to prove that their whacked-out theories are just plain wrong!

 

[Faun]

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.

B-25 is much smaller than a B-24
It does not have anywhere near the kinetic force of a modern jetliner

A small prop plane with little fuel and low speed -- compared to a modern day large commercial jet with a shitload of jet fuel, flying at high speed and at an angle to maximize damage. Yeah, that's practically the same thing.

Again that is a lie.
The WTC was started in 1969, so the building codes would have at least required the towers to be able to safely withstand a crash of twice the largest plane in existence in 1969.

I didn't ask for your opinion. You lie like a rug. I asked you to prove the code was twice the size of the largest plane. Prove it or you prove you're lying about that too.

 

[Faun]

Here are pilots discussing that the speed calculations are impossible.

{...
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room"

06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.

Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow
The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won’t publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation. Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.

Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:

Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data, and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the 9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be thoroughly investigated.

For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.

To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the reported speeds in more detail, please click here.

For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more... please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
...}

LOLOL

You deny being a truther but you lie like one, you take up the positions of one, and here you are quoting conspiracy sites like one.

You are the one trying to label in order to avoid the details being discussed.

Is Dwain Deets a retired Senior Executive at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, or not?

Is he right that the calculated speeds are impossible, or not?
It is likely two rookies could have piloted the 2 craft as well as they did?

Your responses so far are are far less than convincing.

Stop whining. I'm avoiding nothing. As far as Deets, he's a truther who fell for CIT's bullshit, so his perspective is highly questionable. Regardless, it's not difficult to calculate the speed of those jets. And we all witnessed the maneuverability of one of them. We saw them fly a Boeing 767 into the South Tower.

 

[the other mike]

Active thermite dust discovered at ground zero
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

Thermitic material? You mean aluminum and iron oxide? DURR

 

[the other mike]