• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

9/11 Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The WTC towers had glass windows, the buildings were not made of glass but steel and reinforced concrete.

Glass buildings, come on! How can you confuse glass windows with glass buildings?

How come, per the films could the nose of a jet come out of the other side of a tower in a fraction of a second? The nose of a jet is fragile.

Birds can damage the nose of a jet. It would be destroyed in an instant making impact with even a glass window. The body of the plane would drop to the street because of the steel and concrete the buildings were made of.

No pilot, no matter how experienced or talented could have done those remarkable maneuvers toward those towers according to experienced and quite talented pilots.

The speeds could not have been attained. How could hijacker "pilots" who failed to navigate a little Cessna manage so perfectly with huge jets?
Did you see what the B25 Mitchell did to the Empire State Building? Parts of it flew through the building and hit other buildings. The Empire is much heavier constructed than WTC. A Mitchell weighs less than 1/10th of the weight of a 757. The Mitchell was traveling at 1/3rd the speed. The Mitchell had very little fuel on board at time of collision.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Yep, just leave it alone long enough and it will crash Its self.
Actually, with neutral trim it might go on until it runs out of fuel. Even if not trimmed properly, it would probably porpoise. As it nosed down it would pick up speed creating more lift from the wings and start to climb, slowing it down and causing it to nose down and pick up speed and more lift and . . . on and on until it ran out of fuel or hit a high enough mountain. :)
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, with neutral trim it might go on until it runs out of fuel. Even if not trimmed properly, it would probably porpoise. As it nosed down it would pick up speed creating more lift from the wings and start to climb, slowing it down and causing it to nose down and pick up speed and more lift and . . . on and on until it ran out of fuel or hit a high enough mountain. :)
Yep, that's why I said "long enough."
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It turned into small pieces and big pieces. I think many of you should look at aircraft design. Look at the pictures of bird hits on commercial liners.

Oh, please. You are comparing apples and metal. Are you serious with that analogy? Have you looked closely at the earliest photos of the round hole in the Pentagon and seriously thought about what it could -or couldn't - be?
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh, please. You are comparing apples and metal. Are you serious with that analogy? Have you looked closely at the earliest photos of the round hole in the Pentagon and seriously thought about what it could -or couldn't - be?
Yes. It could be a 757. It could not be a tomahawk cruise missile.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Did you see what the B25 Mitchell did to the Empire State Building? Parts of it flew through the building and hit other buildings. The Empire is much heavier constructed than WTC.

Uh, no. Where do you get that? The ETC was built with her collisions in mind. That rembered history.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Oh, please. You are comparing apples and metal. Are you serious with that analogy? Have you looked closely at the earliest photos of the round hole in the Pentagon and seriously thought about what it could -or couldn't - be?
We know exactly what it was. A hole made by the landing gear after separating from the main spar.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Uh, no. Where do you get that? The ETC was built with her collisions in mind. That rembered history.
Yeah. They built it to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 180 mph. The 767 weighs more and was traveling at 580 mph. And was carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Do the math.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No, I haven't. In fact I had a long talk with my son-in-law who is an Architect and Structural Engineer who spent 24 years in the Air Force. He pointed out exactly why the structures collapsed as they did and what caused it.

And Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth was formed 5 years after the WTC towers came down so none of them every examined the wreckage. And who was their main speaker? That well know structural engineer Ed Asner! LOL!

Read the report by Ronald O. Hamburger, chief structural engineer and senior vice president of ABS Consulting Inc. in Oakland, Calif., Hamburger is a member of an engineering team commissioned by the Structural Engineers Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to assess the performance of the WTC and surrounding buildings in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. He was on site and inspecting the debris the day after the collapse. His first report was given in November 2001. He has since greatly expanded that report as new information has come to light. Had the aviation fuel not cause the fires which weakened the main structural supports the towers could probably have survived the impacts and resulting damage.

The fact that "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth was formed 5 years after the WTC towers came down" does not lead to the logical conclusion that none of them examined the wreckage. Actually, Ground Zero was cordoned off and it was a crime to take a picture of it or even to stop to look at the wreckage. The wreckage was removed from the site as soon as possible, sent to Staten Island and then immediately shipped to China. In a way your statement is somewhat true because access to Ground Zero was were limited. Does your son have an explanation of our inability to scramble fighters to protect the two most important cities in the country? There are Air Force and Air National Guard based within 25 miles of both cities. The normal protocol would be to scramble fighters when the aircraft transponders were turned off and there was a loss of radio contact? This would have allowed plenty of time to get fighters up in the air.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeah. They built it to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 180 mph. The 767 weighs more and was traveling at 580 mph. And was carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. Do the math.

WRONG
Leslie E. Robertson - Chief Engineer of the World Trade Center

In 1966, Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707.

To summarize the aircraft:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.
In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Here ya go! LOL!


There were immense pools of molten steel under ground zero for days if not weeks. How would your blacksmith explain that? And why did he use a steel bar heated to 300 degrees F above the heat of burning jet fuel in his little charade?
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
You really gotta do a little research rather than copy and pasting idiocy from conspiracy theory pages.

The 707 the WTC towers were built to withstand was the 707-120.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
There were immense pools of molten steel under ground zero for days if not weeks. How would your blacksmith explain that? And why did he use a steel bar heated to 300 degrees F above the heat of burning jet fuel in his little charade?
Fake. No "pools of molten steel" anywhere. Every person who has been said to have made that claim has stated they never said any such thing.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
The fact that "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth was formed 5 years after the WTC towers came down" does not lead to the logical conclusion that none of them examined the wreckage. Actually, Ground Zero was cordoned off and it was a crime to take a picture of it or even to stop to look at the wreckage. The wreckage was removed from the site as soon as possible, sent to Staten Island and then immediately shipped to China. In a way your statement is somewhat true because access to Ground Zero was were limited. Does your son have an explanation of our inability to scramble fighters to protect the two most important cities in the country? There are Air Force and Air National Guard based within 25 miles of both cities. The normal protocol would be to scramble fighters when the aircraft transponders were turned off and there was a loss of radio contact? This would have allowed plenty of time to get fighters up in the air.
Read the John Farmer inquiry report.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
What was the cost of the 9/11 enquiry compared with the Lewinski enquiry?

What is the 9/11 Commission's budget?

Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million

Clinton Administration Investigations

The new expenditures push the cost of the independent counsel's 4 1/2-year inquiry of the president and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to $39.2 million. Starr was appointed to continue the investigation of the Clinton's Whitewater land deal. The probe was expanded in January 1998 to include the Lewinsky matter.

Before Starr's appointment, a special counsel appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno had spent $6 million on a probe of Whitewater.

Besides Starr, five other independent counsels are currently conducting investigations. Four of those focus on the Clinton Administration. The combined costs of those four inquiries and the Starr probe now comes to $79.3 million.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top