Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » https://www.infoplease.com/passenger-planes-boeing-707 cruise speed is 600mph an hour.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It smaller by six feet, has the same fuel load as 767 and 770 travels faster than 767 at cruise speed. They assumed the 770 would hit it at 600mph an hour with 23,000 galloons of fuel. I already admitted that mistake in a post. I was mistaken it was larger plane than 767 in a post.
Dohnjoe wrote: » For everyone else wondering where these telltale specific (23,000 gallons) figures are coming from, this is the likely sourcehttps://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes
banie01 wrote: » So? The Towers were never designed to withstand an impact of any aircraft at cruise speed! The were designed to take the impact of a lost plane on a runway approach... What part of that needs to be explained any further to you? No high rise building could feasibly expect to withstand an impact from a 110tons at 600mph! Why does this need to be repeatedly explained to you?
Buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial airliners. While documents from The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicate that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph, possibly crashing into the 80th floor, was analyzed during the design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964, the effect of the subsequent fires was not considered. Building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact.
Buildings are not designed for fire protection and evacuation under the magnitude and scale of conditions similar to those caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The load conditions induced by aircraft impacts and the extensive fires on September 11, 2001, which triggered the collapse of the WTC towers, fall outside the norm of design loads considered in building codes.
Prior evacuation and emergency response experience in major events did not include the total collapse of tall buildings such as the WTC Towers and WTC 7 that were occupied and i n everyday use; instead, that experience suggests that major tall building fires result in burnout conditions, not overall building collapse.
Dohnjoe wrote: » https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/WTC_Part-I_Introduction.pdf
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » I reading the document and they did consider a collision at 600mph an hour. So you guys were wrong. Flight 11 hit the tower at 423mph an hour. So those posts before now are waste of time. Fuel not mentioned, but we got this. Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times: John_Skilling Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling was rightfully confident that neither the impact of a large passenger jet nor the ensuing office fires was capable of bringing down the Twin Towers. “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side. . . . Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
banie01 wrote: » There was no consideration paid to fully fueled aircraft impacting the towers. There was a pen and paper study in 1964 that claimed it would survive an impact. However given that the study a 3 page thought experiment with no impact modelling, or load data available it is only of interest to those claiming conspiracy. Modelling the impact resistance of such an impact, is hugely dependent upon theory and assumes that each and every building element is operating at optimum efficiency and that loads follow the predicted path. In the days before dynamic load analysis software, any such paper analysis is little more than a best guess. The actuality of such an impact is far removed from the theory. A worthwhile study now that the blueprints are available would to be create a dynamic analysis of how the impact would play out.
Overheal wrote: » It’s a bit like arguing the Hyatt Regency Walkway was designed to not collapse on itself.
banie01 wrote: » But... But.... They did! Oh wait!
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.
banie01 wrote: » I'd much rather consider Leslie E Robertson's opinion of what the Towers were designed to resist.
Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came nexta key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office buildingpaper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.
Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor. Though the Boeing 767s airliners that hit the towers were somewhat larger than the Boeing 707 (maximum takeoff weights: 395,000 pounds versus 336,000 pounds) the structures were designed to resist, the planes carried a similarly sized fuel load as the older modelabout 24,000 gallons versus 23,000 gallons, according to Kausel. "Most certainly," he continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire." The sprinkler system, which was probably compromised, would have been are useless against this kind of fire, he said, adding, "The World Trade Center towers performed admirably; they stood long enough for the majority of the people to be successfully evacuated."
"There will never be a building that won't fall," Kausel noted. "The best we can do is to ensure that it will stand long enough for all the people to escape." Back when the WTC was built, no one seems to have anticipated the need to evacuate an entire large building at once. To do so successfully means boosting a building's structural redundancythe provision of additional means to assist system function. Panel members discussed providing improved fire protection for the structural elements, alternative load paths to stand in for damaged structures and fixing diaphragm floor beams more strongly to vertical members. Also mentioned was the idea of installing blast-resistant, energy-absorbing materials such as concrete-encased steel exterior columns and/or cavities (reinforced concrete cores) in future large structures that could help them survive or at least promote failure in certain slower, less deleterious sequences.
The Nal wrote: » So reading back, "they" took all the steel from WT7, without anyone noticing, and moved it to a different country? Am I reading this correctly?
Requests for the steel must also be approved by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of Federal District Court, who is overseeing wrongful death lawsuits stemming from the attacks. While the steel is considered potential evidence in those cases, tests on the steel were completed in 2005. The judge has since granted all requests and has given no indication he will do otherwise for the pending ones.
To facilitate the search and clean-up of the World Trade Center collapse, the 1.45 million tons of debris were sent to Fresh Kills, an old landfill on Staten Island. Using rakes, sifting tables, and heavy equipment, workers spread out the debris and meticulously examined it for even the smallest pieces of evidence. The site was staffed by members of the FBI, FDNY, NYPD, and other government agencies. In all, 54,000 personal objects were recovered and 1,200 victims identified.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Observe - this man will be attacked in order to discredit him
Overheal wrote: » Called it DJ
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Leslie flip-flopping for years. He told a group in 2002 he saw a river of Molten steel at WTC site ( there a video of it) then in 2006 claimed it never happened on radio interview and said nobody saw it. He was obviously spoken to shut up about his experience.
Dohnjoe wrote: » Bingo. And no. He said he saw a river of steel flowing. I saw footage of molten steel coming out of one of the buildings on the day of the attacks. It turns out it wasn't molten steel. Therefore I stand corrected. And so does he. Simple. Lots of people see and hear things that later turn out to be wrong. I heard what I thought was a large explosion the other day, it wasn't. But a truther would claim that I did hear an explosion, and that I later changed my story under pressure. I can't be trusted. I am flipflopping. I am not credible. How else do you think they get people to believe 911 was a conspiracy, without actually saying what the conspiracy is
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » You have forgotten we have a picture of a yellow/red liquid river. Least you agree he said it was a river of steel- so that's molten steel. He then changed his mind and said nobody saw it? How you go from claiming it was river of steel to claiming nobody saw anything His bascially ignored a story he told a group of people at Stanford university.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » They're all liars and nobody should believe the US government's view about this attack
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
