it's been posted before i believe.

but yeah, sept. 11th was the anomaly day for all things architectural

So it's unfair to point out that a 10 story building, "clipped" by a plane, but still caught fire, and there were explosions, and jet fuel inside the building did not cause a collapse in this case, but fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers causeing building 7 to collapse, which had no jet fuel inside it.

And by the way, saying that it "clipped" the building is also a bit misleading. It's not like it was part of a wing that hit the building.

Here's a quote form the Scotsmen:

Witnesses initially said the C-130 transport hit the top of the building, but officials, including Police Chief Mortaza Talaei, later said one wing of the plane hit the second floor as the fuselage crashed to ground at the foot of the building, gouging out a huge crater and causing a fire that quickly spread throughout the structure.

Shouldn't this building have collapsed due to the fire, like tower 7 did? I don't think the comparison is unfair at all. While it may not reporduce the attacks of 9/11 perfectly, I think it does cast some more doubts on the official story.

That building also looks to be made of concrete and not steel.
So what you have is a building of different construction, different materials, of different size and hit by an aircraft at a much slower speed and not head on.

Yo can't get much more different than that.

Not to mention that a C-130 is most definately NOT "much bigger" than a 767. C-130s weren't designed to carry tanks. Small infantry fighting vehicles, yes. Tanks, no.

you cant compare the two, the 757's were flying at over 500 knots, the Iranian cargo plane (I guess a C130) was traveling at probably 180 knots. The 757 had two to maybe three times the amount of fuel on board, maybe more. The kentic energy of the 757 compared to the Iranian cargo plane was probably on the magnitude of 200 times more. The total energy, thermal and kentic on the point of impact of the 757 into the towers compared to the cargo plane was probably 1,000 times greater.

Tower 7 fell after being bombarded by millions of tons of concrete and steel weakening the entire structure of building 7, the resulting fire torched all the interior structures which were weakend by the debris of tower 2 ? and since the fire burnt for many hours, resulted in the failure of some of the steel support structures and the building collapsed under its own weight.

no where near capable of comparing the two events

The towers fell because the impact had so much force that it was more then the tensile strength of the steel outer cage could withstand. When the intense heat began to buckle the inner supporting straps from the exterior cage to the interior floor suspension grid the massive weight of the floors collapsed in the suspension straps which resulted in the building falling inward.

No bombs no explosives, just a big fiery high impact plane crash that overcame the tensile strength of the steel grid construction.

Hmmmm,

The apartment does not appear to be as large as the WTC nor the Pentagon, so it seems reasonable that is any part of the wing did not impact directly with the structure, it would be sheared off. The C-130 is a pretty robust design as well.

Also it is a much lighter a/c and the reports idnicate an emergency landing was being attempted which implies perhaps flaps and lowered gear were in use, or at the very least, the a/c was slower than usual rather than running flat out as the planes that hit the WTC or Pentagon were.

The MTOW of a C-130H is 155,000 pounds with a full fuel load
The MTOW of a 757 is 255-272,000
The MTOW of a 767 is about 387,000

So you have a much lighter a/c from the get go as well.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
That building also looks to be made of concrete and not steel.
So what you have is a building of different construction, different materials, of different size and hit by an aircraft at a much slower speed and not head on.

Yo can't get much more different than that.

I think he's referring to building 7, which was not even remotely struck by an aircraft, regardless of the different materials, building 7 housed Rudolph Giuliani’s fortified bunker, along with several CIA offices, and was a sound structure. Who cares what speed the plane hit the building in Tehran? It's not relevant, as he was comparing it to building 7, which was not struck by an Aircraft.

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmmm,

The apartment does not appear to be as large as the WTC nor the Pentagon, so it seems reasonable that is any part of the wing did not impact directly with the structure, it would be sheared off. The C-130 is a pretty robust design as well.

Looks like the wing sheered off and landed at the base of that apartment building!

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmmm,

The apartment does not appear to be as large as the WTC nor the Pentagon, so it seems reasonable that is any part of the wing did not impact directly with the structure, it would be sheared off. The C-130 is a pretty robust design as well.

Looks like the wing sheered off and landed at the base of that apartment building!

Yeah, you are right. In this photograph you provided;



You can see clear damage at the bottom of the building, just above and to the left of the suspected wing fragment. So Something obviously hit the building fairly hard.





[edit on 083131p://09128 by MERC]

No doubt any a/c will hit a building hard. However, the C-130 in question is lighter and believed to be travaling at a much much slower rate of approach.

Much lighter and slower approach to what? We are comparing this to building 7, which was not struck by an aircraft, but by some falling debree. Which is going to hit hardest, an airbourne c-130, or a few falling pieces of steel?

Originally posted by MERC
Much lighter and slower approach to what? We are comparing this to building 7, which was not struck by an aircraft, but by some falling debree. Which is going to hit hardest, an airbourne c-130, or a few falling pieces of steel?

Depends on alot of factors. A few pieces of steel beams can weigh quite alot and spread thier impact over a very small surface area when impacting a surface. The impact can also have a tremendous impact depending an the angle and amount of shear force that is generated by that angle velocity. It depends on the construction of the building and the materials used. etc etc etc.

In otherwords almost every building is different and comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges

Originally posted by MERC
Partial being the operative word here...

This building was much different than the WTC, having a much higher footprint to height ratio. The Pentagon sufferred a partial collapse too, quite similar to the damage this plane did in the Netherlands.

The main point being the WTC complex was so unique in its height and engineering design, you can't compare it to a run-of-the-mill building.

Originally posted by FredT

Depends on alot of factors. A few pieces of steel beams can weigh quite alot and spread thier impact over a very small surface area when impacting a surface. The impact can also have a tremendous impact depending an the angle and amount of shear force that is generated by that angle velocity. It depends on the construction of the building and the materials used. etc etc etc.

In otherwords almost every building is different and comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges

Ahh, right, unless it supports your side of the story, that is?

Originally posted by FredT
However, the C-130 in question is lighter and believed to be travaling at a much much slower rate of approach.

Haha.

Anyway, nobody is using these examples as the absolute gospel as to why the Towers shouldn't have fallen, but they do go a long way to raising a lot more legitimate questions about building 7 falling the way it did, and perhaps even the twin Towers themselves, and you know it.







[edit on 093131p://26129 by MERC]