More Evidence That Airplanes Can't Bring Down Buildings

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...

According to this story, an airplane hit a building in Terhan, killing at least 116 people as of the latest update. But, the tower, even though it was on fire, the tanks of the planes were mostly full, etc., etc., etc., DID NOT COLLAPSE! Compare that to WTC Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane, and yet collapsed do to fire.

I guess whoever designed the World Trade Center buildings should go to Iran to study their apartent building construction techniques. Because, you know, apparently they do it a whole lot better than we do. I mean, a C-130, which is the type of plane that hit the building, is designed to carry tanks and military equipment, and is bigger than the planes that hit the World Trade Center Towers. I'm interested to hear supporters of the government's version of this story is.




posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
it's been posted before i believe.

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



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garden Spider
www.cnn.com...

According to this story, an airplane hit a building in Terhan, killing at least 116 people as of the latest update. But, the tower, even though it was on fire, the tanks of the planes were mostly full, etc., etc., etc., DID NOT COLLAPSE! Compare that to WTC Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane, and yet collapsed do to fire.


By 'tower' I assume you mean the 10 storey building which (in the words of the reporter if you watch the video clip) clipped the building while trying to make an emergency landing (this means he was going slow to anyone that hasn't flown).

More than an unfair comparison there I think...

[edit on 7-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
An airplane crash caused a partial collapse of a building in Amsterdam in 1992:



The Bijlmerramp (in English: Bijlmer disaster) was an airplane crash. On October 4, 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747 cargo plane of the Israeli El Al airline crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmer neighbourhood (part of 'Amsterdam Zuidoost') of Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands. A total of 43 people were killed, including the plane's crew of three and an unidentified "nonrevenue passenger". Many more were injured.

The plane, a cargo jet belonging to the Israeli carrier El Al, departed at 18h10 from Schiphol airport for Tel Aviv. Above the Gooimeer, two of the plane's engines broke off the right wing: A fuse pin on engine 3 sheared inappropriately due to corrosion, leaving the pod to tilt up and right due to gyroscopic forces, knocking engine 4 off the wing too. A China Airlines 747-200F freighter was brought down by the same causes in December 1991.

The crew remained unaware of the extent of the damage, being unable to see the wing. After circling twice the plane returned to the airport and attempted to land. During the approach the flaps were extended, which apparently rendered the plane uncontrollable. At 18h35 the heavily loaded plane crashed into a row of high-rise apartments called Groeneveen. The building caught fire and partially collapsed, destroying dozens of apartments. [emphasis mine]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
The Iranian C-130's wing that hits an apartment building survives a direct hit:




but both wings of a Boeing 757 that was said to have hit the Pentagon do not:






Hmmmmm? Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
An airplane crash caused a partial collapse of a building in Amsterdam in 1992:



The Bijlmerramp (in English: Bijlmer disaster) was an airplane crash. On October 4, 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747 cargo plane of the Israeli El Al airline crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmer neighbourhood (part of 'Amsterdam Zuidoost') of Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands. A total of 43 people were killed, including the plane's crew of three and an unidentified "nonrevenue passenger". Many more were injured.

The plane, a cargo jet belonging to the Israeli carrier El Al, departed at 18h10 from Schiphol airport for Tel Aviv. Above the Gooimeer, two of the plane's engines broke off the right wing: A fuse pin on engine 3 sheared inappropriately due to corrosion, leaving the pod to tilt up and right due to gyroscopic forces, knocking engine 4 off the wing too. A China Airlines 747-200F freighter was brought down by the same causes in December 1991.

The crew remained unaware of the extent of the damage, being unable to see the wing. After circling twice the plane returned to the airport and attempted to land. During the approach the flaps were extended, which apparently rendered the plane uncontrollable. At 18h35 the heavily loaded plane crashed into a row of high-rise apartments called Groeneveen. The building caught fire and partially collapsed, destroying dozens of apartments. [emphasis mine]

en.wikipedia.org...



Partial being the operative word here...

[edit on 073131p://56127 by MERC]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

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!



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

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]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
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?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
FredT, looking at the pictures of this recent Tehran incident, and the Windsor building in Madrid (from earlier this year);



Which was completely engulfed in flames at one point, and burned for two days, but still did not collapse. Could I enquire how on earth building 7, which was only subjected to moderate impacts by falling debree, and moderate fire, could be reduced to this;



in under 10 hours? What Was it made out of, Egg Cartons and Masking tape, or something?









[edit on 093131p://04129 by MERC]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

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



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join