Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if you believe the kinetic energy of the 767 took down the towers.
Surely you believe the extra kinetic energy from the significantly higher thrust-to-weight ratio of the 707 would have brought down the towers too?
So if you believe the kinetic energy of the 767 took down the towers.
Surely you believe the extra kinetic energy from the significantly higher thrust-to-weight ratio of the 707 would have brought down the towers too?
Let's do it, actually..
Cruise Speeds:
767 - 530 mph
707 - 607 mph
Mass (Max takeoff):
767 - 395k lbs
707 - 336k lbs
KE = 0.5 x mv²
Boeing 767 - Cruise speed 530² = 280,900
0.5 x 395,000 lbs x 280,900 = 5,547,775,000 J
Boeing 707 - Cruise Speed 607² = 368,449
0.5 x 336,000 lbs x 368,449 = 6,189,943,200 J
The 707 was the largest airliner at the time of construction. The towers were designed to withstand impact from a 707. Maybe world class engineers overlooked the fact that jets run off of jet fuel.
Man, I'd love to know what their definition of "withstand" was.
"HEY GUISE - Of a 7-oh-7 flew into this tower it totally won't fall over on it's side HARR HARR"
As for your kinetic energy stuff....
You seem to have forgotton (I'm giving you credit for having actually known it at one point - I could be [probably am] wrong about that) that those engineers designed the building to withstand a hit from a plane that either just took off or was on final approach. In either case, they wouldn't be at cruising speed.
Feel free to correct your math. Or not. I don't care. But if you're going to do it, you should at least take some basic precautions to ensure that you're doing it right.
You seem to have forgotton (I'm giving you credit for having actually known it at one point - I could be [probably am] wrong about that) that those engineers designed the building to withstand a hit from a plane that either just took off or was on final approach. In either case, they wouldn't be at cruising speed.
Feel free to correct your math. Or not. I don't care. But if you're going to do it, you should at least take some basic precautions to ensure that you're doing it right.
They didn't even "design the building" for that purpose. This part of the tale gets a little ridiculous. I've even seen it morph into "it was designed to take multiple hits from Boeing 747s!" Next someone will be saying it was designed to take a hit from the space shuttle.
The WTC sat within sight of three major airports. Naturally, there would be a "what if?" arising regarding the remote possibility of a plane landing or taking off and something going awry and the building being hit by a commercial jet. They did some calculations to make sure the towers could withstand impact in such a scenario. From what I've read in interviews with old engineers who were around at the time, it was sort of a side thing and those calculations and/or any related reports on the subject, which would have been done almost 50 years ago, no longer exist as far as anyone knows.
What was in that building? Types of offices? Business? etc.
Well...since it was known as the Salomon Brothers Building, I'm taking a wild guess that they were one of the main tenants.
Yes, businesses and government. NYC OEM was there, and the FBI had offices in the building. I've also heard CIA had an office there, but I don't know that for sure. A woman in my office now worked in 7 at the time and I think she was with Smith Barney. There's probably a tenant list on the Internet somewhere.
They didn't even "design the building" for that purpose. This part of the tale gets a little ridiculous. I've even seen it morph into "it was designed to take multiple hits from Boeing 747s!" Next someone will be saying it was designed to take a hit from the space shuttle.
The WTC sat within sight of three major airports. Naturally, there would be a "what if?" arising regarding the remote possibility of a plane landing or taking off and something going awry and the building being hit by a commercial jet. They did some calculations to make sure the towers could withstand impact in such a scenario. From what I've read in interviews with old engineers who were around at the time, it was sort of a side thing and those calculations and/or any related reports on the subject, which would have been done almost 50 years ago, no longer exist as far as anyone knows.
Yeah, I don't doubt it. I think the whole truther thing is beyond ridiculous, but I saw an obvious mistake in an argument, so I thought I'd throw that person a bone by pointing it out to them. Of course, them fixing their mistake doesn't strengthen their argument, but it was a mistake nonetheless.
You seem to have forgotton (I'm giving you credit for having actually known it at one point - I could be [probably am] wrong about that) that those engineers designed the building to withstand a hit from a plane that either just took off or was on final approach. In either case, they wouldn't be at cruising speed.
Feel free to correct your math. Or not. I don't care. But if you're going to do it, you should at least take some basic precautions to ensure that you're doing it right.
Depends which engineer you believe. The dead one or the alive, and prefers to stay that way, one.
...• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
In the 1980's? That's a long time to prepare for something that may or may not happen.
True or false:
Quote:
Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport
You trust people doing their jobs a heck of allot more than I do.
PS: It is rumored of electrical workers working in the buildings some weeks before the towers fell.
uhm false
I knew some idiot would bring up marvin
he was a STOCKHOLDER in a company that got the ELECTRONIC security contract after the 1993 bombing(contract awarded in 96)..that company LOST its contract in 1997 and EJ electric got it
bush was a STOCKHOLDER in a company called Securacom (later Stratesec),that LOST the contract in 1997...
Securacom got the $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1997. But in 1997, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein, and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric, a larger contractor.
The Long Island City, N.Y.-based contractor installed 2 million feet of fiber-optic cable, hundreds of security cameras, access control and 110 turnstiles, including systems integration. The parking garage also became restricted after a terrorist drove a van, containing a bomb, into the underground parking garage in 1993.
so the twoofer lie..is matched by the debunker truth....the security system was installed and operated by E-J Electric Installation Co., and Electronic Systems Associates, a division of Syska Hennessy
Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder.
..• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says
From a govt who couldn't keep PRISIM a secret, you want us to believe they have been able to execute one of the most diabolical events of all time.
Whew. . .take a breath. . .laughing too hard
Comparing PRISM to WTC...
Well, they're both fruit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
