9/11 Revisited

[TCassidy]

So we have two coroners with conflicting reports.

<Sigh> No, we don't. Wally Miller and Wallace Miller are the same guy! When he first went to the scene of the crash he was surprised to see how little detritus was evident on the ground. After sifting through the crater he, and others, found the remains of 189 people.

 

[InTheLight]

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.

I believe this is correct. The architect for the WTC towers was named in September 1962. The Boeing 707-120 debuted in 1958, peaked in popularity in 1960. The Boeing 707-320 came out in June 1962. It's unlikely that the towers were designed with the 707-320 in mind.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-120 is 257,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767 is 395,000 pounds.

That's quite a difference.

 

[TCassidy]

Simply not true. It was the Boeing 767-200ER. That's the plane I showed the information for.

The WTC could NOT have been designed to survive the impact of a 767 as the 767 did not enter service until 1981 and the WTC was designed in 1968.

 

[FollowTheWay]

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.

The Empire State Building was designed in the late 1920's. The WTC towers were designed in 1963. Do you really believe that buildings taller than the ESB were designed35 years later were built to lower design requirements? That building codes became less restrictive in 35 years in Manhattan? No way. I'm not even going to bother checking that out.

 

[Reynolds]

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

I honestly can not decipher what you wrote.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The WTC could NOT have been designed to survive the impact of a 767 as the 767 did not enter service until 1981 and the WTC was designed in 1968.

Typo. I meant the Boeing 707-220ER.
707-220
The 707-220 was designed for hot and high operations with more powerful 15,800 lb (70.3 kN) Pratt & Whitney JT4A-3 turbojets. Five of these were produced, but only four were ultimately delivered, with one being lost during a test flight. All were for Braniff International Airways and carried the model number 707-227; the first entered service in December 1959.

The WTC Design was completed in Jan, 1964. It assumed the largest and heaviest aircraft then flying. That was the Boeing 707-220ER.

 

[TCassidy]

How about some proof of your statement? I'll find support for mine.

The (false) claim is made that Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition, Inc. said he saw pools of molten steel. But when asked he said, "I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site."

Then the claim was made "The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers."

But when Mr. Robertson was contacted, he said, "I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."

 

[Reynolds]

The Empire State Building was designed in the late 1920's. The WTC towers were designed in 1963. Do you really believe that buildings taller than the ESB were designed35 years later were built to lower design requirements? That building codes became less restrictive in 35 years in Manhattan? No way. I'm not even going to bother checking that out.

Constructed differently. The old buildings were stiffer and structurally harder. The newer buildings are designed to flex and move. Lighter weight can be stronger in many ways but weaker in others.

 

[FollowTheWay]

For complete disclosure, I am a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It was an honor to be accepted into that group. There are only about 2,500 members and they did a thorough check of education and experience before they admitted anyone.

 

[TCassidy]

Typo. I meant the Boeing 707-220ER.
707-220
The 707-220 was designed for hot and high operations with more powerful 15,800 lb (70.3 kN) Pratt & Whitney JT4A-3 turbojets. Five of these were produced, but only four were ultimately delivered, with one being lost during a test flight. All were for Braniff International Airways and carried the model number 707-227; the first entered service in December 1959.

The WTC Design was completed in Jan, 1964. It assumed the largest and heaviest aircraft then flying. That was the Boeing 707-220ER.

The 707-220 weighed, fully loaded with passengers, luggage, freight, and a full load of fuel, 270,000 pounds, and was figured to be traveling at 180 mph. The 767 weighed 275,000 pounds and was traveling at 580 mph.

 

[TCassidy]

For complete disclosure, I am a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It was an honor to be accepted into that group. There are only about 2,500 members and they did a thorough check of education and experience before they admitted anyone.

Which are you, an Architect or a Structural Engineer?

 

[InTheLight]

Typo. I meant the Boeing 707-220ER.

The WTC Design was completed in Jan, 1964. It assumed the largest and heaviest aircraft then flying. That was the Boeing 707-220ER.

How do you know the WTC design assumed the 707-220ER was the plane used in their simulated crashes? Boeing only built five of these models, so I highly doubt you are correct.

The link you provided earlier only says this:
A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

 

[TCassidy]

A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

What the white paper seems to have missed is that a 707 traveling at 600 mph at 1500 feet agl would have exceeded its critical speed and would begin to disintegrate. The assumed speed is usually the approach or best rate of climb speed which, for a 707, is 180 mph.

 

[Reynolds]

For complete disclosure, I am a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It was an honor to be accepted into that group. There are only about 2,500 members and they did a thorough check of education and experience before they admitted anyone.

Thanks for disclosing your membership in the tin foil hat society. That is not an easy thing to admit.

 

[InTheLight]

What the white paper seems to have missed is that a 707 traveling at 600 mph at 1500 feet agl would have exceeded its critical speed and would begin to disintegrate. The assumed speed is usually the approach or best rate of climb speed which, for a 707, is 180 mph.

That seems logical. How fast could a 707 safely fly at above ground level of 1,500 feet?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Speaking of Mr. Loizeux and Controlled Demolition, he and CDI are the folks I am referring to when I say there is a very small pool of people who could set the explosives for a controlled demolition such as has been posited. It's a small enough pool that their locations during the relevant time periods would be easily verified. IOW, has anyone come up with holes in the pool's schedules?

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition, Inc.

 

[TCassidy]

That seems logical. How fast could a 707 safely fly at above ground level of 1,500 feet?

Insertion speed is about 175 mph. Stall speed is around 110. Never exceed speed would be around 350 at that altitude.

 

[InTheLight]

Speaking of Mr. Loizeux and Controlled Demolition, he and CDI are the folks I am referring to when I say there is a very small pool of people who could set the explosives for a controlled demolition such as has been posited. It's a small enough pool that their locations during the relevant time periods would be easily verified. IOW, has anyone come up with holes in the pool's schedules?

Now, now Squire Robertson, the conspiracists can claim that "no pilot could make a plane fly that way" despite the fact that eyewitnesses saw the plane fly that way. But you, no, you are not allowed to suggest that only a certain handful of people would have the know-how to blow up the World Trade Center in a controlled demolition. Surely that's not specialized knowledge...</sarcasm off>

 

[TCassidy]

controlled demolition

Except it was not, obviously, a controlled demolition. The very first thing you notice about every controlled demolition is that it is controlled. Such demolitions are always from the bottom up. NEVER from the top down as the WTC towers obviously collapsed.

 

[Rippon]

Thanks for disclosing your membership in the tin foil hat society. That is not an easy thing to admit.

And the above is brought to you by Mr. Reynold's Wrap.