What bombs?He says in this interview it could withstand multiple plane impacts. That's why he stayed in the WTC after the planes hit, and died after the bombs went off.
A 707 lands at 600 mph?Kinetic energy is based on the square of the velocity. The 707 had a cruising speed of 600 mph, while the 767 was 530 mph. So the 707 had more kinetic energy.
That's all it took.The fireproofing was only knocked off the beams in the places where the plane directly hit the beams. This is only a few of the columns a few floors.
Once a plane crashed through it, there was a lot more in there.Also, fires don't burn in the core, because the core was all steel and concrete.
You may want to try using common sense before you make a fool of yourself posting online.You may want double check the crap you read on those archie debunking sites before you make a fool of yourself and post it online.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 10-25-2007 at 04:35 PM. Reason: forgot an "s"
Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
A Boeing 707 has a cruise speed of 607 mph
A Boeing 767 has a cruise speed of 530 mph
Kinetic energy equals (1/2)x(mass)x(velocity squared)
At cruise speed, a Boeing 707 has more kinetic energy than a Boeing 767.
btw
WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, so NONE of it's fireproofing was dislodged at all.
707s land at 607 mph?
707s cruise at 1000 feet?
It was hit by the second tallest building in America, and burned longer than the fireproofing was designed for.btw
WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, so NONE of it's fireproofing was dislodged at all.
And really, engineers thought this bridge was designed to withstand the winds blowing over Puget Sound:
You never know until something actually happens.
R U some sort of a dolt?
The WTC was designed to withstand plane crashes into them. Your stupid argument that a Boeing 767 is a little bit bigger than a Boeing 707, so therefore a Boeing 767 would knock the WTC down, but a Boeing 707 wouldn't is not only trivial, but also dead wrong, as the kinetic energy of a Boeing 707 going at X% of its cruise speed is MORE than the kinetic energy of a a Boeing 767 going X% of its cruise speed.
The kinetic energy of the plane would be the same at either an impact at 500 feet or 1000 feet, it doens't matter. Are you sure you're all there?
And Boeing 707s were less fuel efficient, so a plane crash in 1970 would likely have more fuel than one in 2001. And the crashes in 2001 were both with less than half full fueltanks.
The fireproofing was designed to last more than 2 hours and the Twin Towers burned for only 1 to 1 1/2 hours each. The fire is the South Tower was going out, so they had to pull the switch and take it down before people got wise.
Planes do not cruise at 1000 feet.The WTC was designed to withstand plane crashes into them. Your stupid argument that a Boeing 767 is a little bit bigger than a Boeing 707, so therefore a Boeing 767 would knock the WTC down, but a Boeing 707 wouldn't is not only trivial, but also dead wrong, as the kinetic energy of a Boeing 707 going at X% of its cruise speed is MORE than the kinetic energy of a a Boeing 767 going X% of its cruise speed.
Are you a dolt? Are you all there? The fireproofing was knocked off on impact.The fireproofing was designed to last more than 2 hours and the Twin Towers burned for only 1 to 1 1/2 hours each.
Which would be dandy if it was actually on the steel. It wasn't.The fireproofing was designed to last more than 2 hours
Why would anyone have to pull a switch? What is the actual purpose of blowing up towers that have already had passenger jets rammed into them at 550 mph?The fire is the South Tower was going out, so they had to pull the switch and take it down before people got wise.
What would people get wise to?
I'm convinced that everyone on the "truthers" side of this argument is a mouse troll.
I'm also convinced that all of mouses trolls are as dumb as he is. , at least make up a "smart" troll and escape reality from time to time rather then just enhancing it.
Nah, this Galileo guy actually sounds like he believes the bull . Mouse just hits and runs to start some .
CD will go out of his way to prove every fact, aphorism, and resource used in the 9/11 commission report was valid, relevant, and insightful.
Well, no one has gone out of his way to present an alternate theory that is valid, relevant and insightful.
Anthony Michael Hall would be ashamed.
It's one thing to say its the most plausible theory but another to say because it is the most plausible it is automatically completely true.
Eh, I've done enough research. It's a plausible theory and pretty easily defensible. That isn't my fault. I'm open to other theories, but no one has ever actually come up with one that explains everything.
The WTC was designed to withstand multiple plane impacts. This is not a simple concept to understand.
WTC 7 couldn't even withstand 0 plane impacts.
CD, in your infinite wisdom, do you think WTC 7 was designed to stand 0 plane impacts?
You're in luck, new video!
VIDEO -- Twin Towers: Demolished For Effect
controlled demolition | demolished for effect | Jim Hoffman | oral histories | Steven Jones | Twin Towers | witness testimony
Powerful new video features strong evidence for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
Please spread this video around. It can and should go viral.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12170
And that bridge was designed to withstand wind.The WTC was designed to withstand multiple plane impacts. This is not a simple concept to understand.
Was it designed to withstand the impact of the second tallest building in America and uncontrolled fire?WTC 7 couldn't even withstand 0 plane impacts.
CD, in your infinite wisdom, do you think WTC 7 was designed to stand 0 plane impacts?
Same crap, different music.Powerful new video
That's the best you got, ChumpDumpler? A bridge. Did you ever read the scientific report to see what the scientists said about the bridge?
WTC 7 had a few chunks of debris fly into it, let's see your evidence.
And it had only a few small fires. I already posted the official NIST summary of the fire locations. You can't just change the facts because you're in a bad mood. The official summary of debris damage is also in the same report.
Have you read a scientific report?
WTC 7 - Arson or a smokescreen?
WTC Owner Larry Silverstein gave order to "pull" Building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1
6:47 a.m. September 11, 2001: WTC Building 7 Alarm Not Operating According to later reports, the alarm system in WTC 7 is placed on “TEST” status for a period due to last eight hours. This ordinarily happens during maintenance or other testing, and any alarms received from the building are generally ignored. [National Ins ute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. 28 ]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...a647alarmnoton
Who pulled the fire alarm and started WTC 7 on fire? Was the fire a smokescreen?
It was designed to withstand wind. It didn't. What else is there to say?
WTC 7 had a few chunks of debris fly into it, let's see your evidence.
Here's a post from the last time this was brought up:
And last (for now) but not least, two video stills showing tremendous damage to the south side of 7 WTC caused by the collapse of the north tower:
Here's the video from which the first still was taken:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_3uUQt8bu6k
and the second:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...16413&hl=en-CA
The fire is not tiny.And it had only a few small fires. I already posted the official NIST summary of the fire locations. You can't just change the facts because you're in a bad mood. The official summary of debris damage is also in the same report.
http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg
But thanks for pointing out that they were on floors critical to the structure. That helps me out a lot.
Not the final one. Neither have you.Have you read a scientific report?
And another blast from the past -- interviews of people on the scene at WTC7 that I put together in April:
Here's part of an interview with a fireman from Ladder Company 22:
They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind [the Verizon building],
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.
Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.
Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we
started searching around all the rigs.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...ki_Richard.txt
Here's the Chief of Department:
The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of
an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.
We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...gro_Daniel.txt
Here's Chief Frank Cruthers:
A. ....Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --
Q. A collapse zone?
A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...C/Cruthers.txt
Here's part of a Firehouse magazine interview with FDNY Captain Cris Boyle:
Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../gz/boyle.html
They also interviewed deputy Chief Peter Hayden:
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9...gz/hayden.html
Also from Firehouse:
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
But I'm sure you're going to say they were all in on the conspiracy.....
CD is making the point to you that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of 707 while it was at landing speed, (not the 600 mph you are claiming) not a 747 cruising directly at the tower at 550 mph.
And mookie will go out of his way to bring his trolls to defend his position
Last edited by smeagol; 10-26-2007 at 06:05 AM.
Chump, Galileo, either of you two look through this do ent? It supports so much of what Chump has said:
Appendix L; INTERIM REPORT ON WTC 7
Has some cool pictures of WTC 7 damage before it fell, and describes the substation, trussing, etc.
It was struck by something with more mass and kinetic energy than an airplane.
Yes, he is a real ass most the time.
I hate to say this because I dislike Chump, but we agree on this issue.
Something to clesar up...
weights (common larger sizes):
707 max weight 333600 lbs
767 max weight 395000 lbs
same airframes empty:
707 146400 lbs
767 181610 lbs
resources:
707 detailed specs from Boeing
757 detailed specs from Boeing
767 detailed specs from Boeing
Great work! Now please get this info pronto to the NIST scientists so they can finish up theie work. There is no visual proof that this giant gaping hole exists, and contradicting staements from others that it didn't, but maybe you can hang your hat on one lone witness.
[how would a gaping hole on the south face cause the east Penthouse to collpase on the roof anyway?]
NIST has already determined that structural damage had nothing to do with the collapse, as most of the damage was at the SW corner below the 18th floor, and the collapse began on the roof below the east Penthouse.
What really happened is the people doing the controlled demolition spread rumors WTC 7 would fall, and in a paranoid atmosphere people believed it.
Did your boys at the scene bother to check that someone turned off the fire alarms in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M. that morning? That's before any of the planes were hijacked. Who turned off the fire alarm in this highly secure building that housed the CIA, FBI, and Security & Exchange Commission?
So he is arguing that the WTC couldn't withstand a hit from one 767, but was designed to withstand multiple 707s, because the 767 weighs a little bit more?
Two 707s weigh more than one 767.
The 707 has a higher landing speed than a 767.
The WTC withstood the impact of the 767 anyway. There was just a fire near the top. That's why all the firemen and policemen rushed in, they knew it was safe becasue the engineers knew the fire wouldn't have any impact on the steel structure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
