It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What happened to WTC 7 again?

page: 13
0
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:10 PM

You're wrong.

Here's a good scientific and expert opinion on why you are wrong:

www.serendipity.li...

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

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.

So, 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.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

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

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

They are actaully designed to withstand a jet that is 'lost for landing' if the situation arose. This was supposed to be a 707 going approximately 170 mph, typical landing speed and not a 767 going 550 mph.

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:26 PM
I had written something but I know it would get me banned for life, so i will post this instead.

1. Can I ask you to please stop calling me a liar, or your balls may fall off without warning.

2. You can believe what you want, I have stated this before, but..ummm.....where is that evidence of the demo?

3. The steel did not have to melt, only weaken. How hard is that to grasp?Do you want to go down the column road again?

4. This is a post about WTC 7 anyway. The building that burned for 8 hours and collapsed. Where is your proof of demo?????

It is your job to convince the rest of the world, I mean, 4 seperate studies came the same conclusion, but you guys know the truth...

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:38 PM

3. The steel did not have to melt, only weaken. How hard is that to grasp?Do you want to go down the column road again?

This is well understood here Esdad. The problem is that you haven't offered any evidence that there was sufficient heating from those fires. No one has offered this evidence. And we've been waiting for years.

4. This is a post about WTC 7 anyway. The building that burned for 8 hours and collapsed. Where is your proof of demo?????

I've known candles to burn for longer. Show us how this 8-hour fire was intense enough to collapse WTC7.

It is your job to convince the rest of the world, I mean, 4 seperate studies came the same conclusion, but you guys know the truth...

It's what these studies say, not how many of them there are. That's what intelligent discussions are for.

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:41 PM
Yet you for some reason will not accept anything that is printed by any of the official stories. How can evidence be presented otherwise if you discount the official story.

and where is your evidence, at least I have heat, gravity and engineering.

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:53 PM

Yet you for some reason will not accept anything that is printed by any of the official stories.

On the basis of what they have suggested thus far, yeah. Pretty much. I believe a lot of their actual data, but their conclusions, not so much. They make some pretty big logical jumps.

Edit to give you an example: They find evidence of a couple columns heated to only 250 C. Some columns appear, though only behind aluminum facades, to be buckled, though from what it's not clear. NIST takes this info and declares that therefore, the trusses failed and somehow caused global collapse. They don't even tell you how the global collapse worked. They just tell you the trusses failed, and that's that. And based on what evidence, again?

How can evidence be presented otherwise if you discount the official story.

I don't even understand what exactly you're trying to say here. How can we present evidence if it isn't a part of the official story? Is that what you're asking? Should be pretty self explanatory, man . . .

and where is your evidence, at least I have heat, gravity and engineering.

Well I have all of that plus explosives so I guess we're even. Nice logic.

I think you're putting much more stock into the fanfare of these publications than you are into what they're actually saying.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:00 PM
1: I didn't call you a liar. I said you are wrong... HUGE DIFFERENCE

2: Fine, I'll show you evidence of a demolition if you can show me evidence of 18 - 20 rookie terrorist pilots pulling off 9/11 under our noses for several years.

3: Your claim about the jets impacting the towers was the only thing I addressed, sure, heat weakens steel and we can continue to look at this further.

4: You're exactly right, so why are you talking about planes slamming into WTC Twin Towers? See answer #2.

5: It's my job to ask questions, it's my job to address the inconsistencies in the answers to those questions. It's not my job to prove a demolition theory is what happened, nor is it your job to prove the theory that 18-20 rookie pilot terrorists pulled off the events of 9/11.

Yes, the 4 different studies did a fantastic job explaining everything and that's why everyone's just happy and content with the data.

*ahem*

I am looking for the truth, you're the only one who acts like they know the truth.

I had written something but I know it would get me banned for life, so i will post this instead.

1. Can I ask you to please stop calling me a liar, or your balls may fall off without warning.

2. You can believe what you want, I have stated this before, but..ummm.....where is that evidence of the demo?

3. The steel did not have to melt, only weaken. How hard is that to grasp?Do you want to go down the column road again?

4. This is a post about WTC 7 anyway. The building that burned for 8 hours and collapsed. Where is your proof of demo?????

It is your job to convince the rest of the world, I mean, 4 seperate studies came the same conclusion, but you guys know the truth...

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 06:34 AM
Before you look for truth, you need to have an idea of what the truth is. If you care to live in denial that this could have occured, this is your choice. However, yes, I will speak as if I kow based on my research, and it is your job to discredit FEMA, NIST, the 9/11 commision and any other private investigation if YOU feel you have a theory.

However, you do not and you have no evidence except "not wanting to believe or have faith " in the results of the investigation.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:52 AM

..ummm.....where is that evidence of the demo?

3. The steel did not have to melt, only weaken. How hard is that to grasp?Do you want to go down the column road again?

Ummmm...where is that evidence that the steel was heated to 600C or higher? NIST didn't find any. But NIST did find sulfidated steel. Now, who has the evidence to support their side? Yes, the sulfidation could possibly be from gypsum, but at least there is that evidence. Your side doesn't have ANY evidence for steel heated to 600C. And computer simulations don't count.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:00 AM

It is your job to convince the rest of the world, I mean, 4 seperate studies came the same conclusion, but you guys know the truth...

Yes, 4 seperate studies. Let's see who those studies are from.

1. FEMA....government agency...if the government was involved, I highly doubt that a government agency would tell on itself.

2. NIST...government agency....see above.

3. 9/11 commission...also a government agency...see above.

4. Silverstein's study......hmm...if he was involved, this makes this study null and void. Or is it acceptable in a court of law to have a suspected murderer to do his own investigation into the murders? That's like having OJ do Nicole's murder investigation.

What we need is an independant study (hopefully international). But, that can never happen because:

a. The steel has been smelted....yes there is still some steel left, but it was hand picked for study by FEMA.....see above.

b. The construction documents are classified.

c. Anyone who questions the governments findings is automatically labeled a conspiracy nut and dragged through the mud.....who wants to loose their career over this? Thank God for scholars for 9/11 truth.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:03 AM
Since when do you decide what counts? I am always amused with these posts.

www.nist.gov...

Here is an update, and I am not sure why you cannot accept this. It is not about 'melted' steel, but that is a nice arguement many people would walk away from.

www.fema.gov...

I know you won't read it, but you hsould.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:08 AM

It is not about 'melted' steel,

Why do you continue with this strawman arguement? No one on here has stated ANYTHING about melted steel....except you of course.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:48 AM
esdad71 - this is mainly for you.

I used to believe as you do. About 2 years ago I read something that changed the way I think.

"Research with an open mind while not trying to make what you WANT to believe."

I looked into the most probable - WTC7.

I looked at as many pictures and videos as I could find to try and find just ONE other building anywhere in the world that fell for any reason other than a demolition like WTC7 fell.

I found they ALL fell either crooked, sideways or partial. All for reasons such as fire, earthquakes or other damage outside of control.

A building just CANNOT fall like WTC7 did unless is was controlled.

You could put some doubt back into my head IF you could find ONE building (besides the WTC) that fell straight down and was not demoed.

It seems like you want to believe it was a fire brought it down or you just don't want to be wrong. It is OK to be wrong - I have and admiited it. It's ok, really. We're human.

You won't find any other buildings that fell like that, but please do look. I know you want to be right, but sometimes the truth is not what we want it to be.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:10 AM
Yes, I know what belief and faith is. My faith and belief is my journey to find and discover the truth, not that I know the truth. Denial is telling yourself you know the truth especially if you base your truth on someone elses discoveries.

If I gave you a bible, and that's all you read, ignoring all other doctrines.

that's denial.

and like I said, it's not my job to discredit anything but address the inconsistencies..... asking questions, if you have something to add, fine, I'll read it, and research it, and as such with the airplane data and the WTC towers.... you were wrong.

Before you look for truth, you need to have an idea of what the truth is. If you care to live in denial that this could have occured, this is your choice. However, yes, I will speak as if I kow based on my research, and it is your job to discredit FEMA, NIST, the 9/11 commision and any other private investigation if YOU feel you have a theory.

However, you do not and you have no evidence except "not wanting to believe or have faith " in the results of the investigation.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:30 AM
I can't believe some of you still don't get it. Someone has been doing you from behind for years. 9/11 was thier sloppiest piece of work to date.

Those buildings were rigged, the planes were probably guided remotely and Bin Laden was just waiting in the wings to take the credit for it all.... are you not suspicious that he still hasn't been found?

A passport just fell to the ground un-scathed? Yeah right... the black boxes were reported to be intact by a fire-fighter....what happened to them?Oh, they got incinerated? Cos they don't expect a fireball when they're designing them i guess??? uh huh, righto.

I dunno what happened that day or who did it...but it's nothing like what we've been told..i know that. WTC 7 just tops it off. No sense there at all.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:30 AM
EDIT - double post...sorry

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Rapture404]

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 12:51 PM
What do you base your beliefs about the WTC on then? You are effectively telling me that unless I could do all the tests myself, that there is nothing for me to believe in.

Sorry if I feel that there is no conspiracy, and it is difficult to be one of maybe 3 people on ATS who actually attempt to explain that I feel our government had no hand in 9/11. There were no remote control planes. There were no holograms. These are cool theories. but 1000's of eyewitnesses debunk this.

I feel that unless someone can show me proof, and not Silverstien saying "pull it", i have to believe that 2 planes struck the towers, damage to the inner and outcore is present, fires weaken interior structure farther, and it collapses. There are no other buildings, short of one in Seattle I believe, that is built the same. WTC had a very unique architecture and it is interesting to investigate. You will find some cool connections to the Rockefellers.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by godservant
I found they ALL fell either crooked, sideways or partial. All for reasons such as fire, earthquakes or other damage outside of control.

A building just CANNOT fall like WTC7 did unless is was controlled.

You could put some doubt back into my head IF you could find ONE building (besides the WTC) that fell straight down and was not demoed.

Actually, unless a building like that falls because of an earthquake it's going to fall straight down. I have never seen a building tip over or fall any other way (outside of falling from an earthquake).
It has to do with their size shape and structure. An earthquake is the only force I can think of that's strong enough to cause a (completely constructed) skyscraper to fall some other way.

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 02:56 PM
promomag:

excellent link, surprising that that comparison between the 707 and 757 hasn't been made before.

I'm shocked that they are basically the same plane in terms of relevant stats for our analysis here.

I have a question for you that is personal and you may not want to answer it and that is fine...

But what do you do for a living??

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 05:05 PM

Since when do you decide what counts? I am always amused with these posts.

www.nist.gov...

Here is an update, and I am not sure why you cannot accept this. It is not about 'melted' steel, but that is a nice arguement many people would walk away from.

www.fema.gov...

I know you won't read it, but you hsould.

I read 'em, and still don't see what point you are trying to make. The NIST link you posted - why? It's all about WTC 1 and 2 (perhaps that was for someone else). The FEMA chapter? All conjecture and hypothesis. They think this caused that. And that caused this. Let me give you an example (well I would if I could copy and paste from the PDF) - page 5-31 of the document, Observations and Findings. Paraphrased they say the loss of structural integrity was LIKELY caused by fires on the 5th and 7th floors, BUT THE EXTENT OF THE FIRES IN WTC 7 ARE UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME. The 5th and 7th floors were important because they supported much of the building, and yet there were few sprinklers on floor 5, and suspect fireproofing?

Oh yeah - FEMA uses stills from TV news footage and pics from news sources. Just like us conspiracy 'nuts'. Someone ought to tell them not to. But since they are (when outlining the length of the collapse) they could put in the time code (I'm sure CNN, et al all have that built into their cameras) but they didn't.

There is NOTHING CONCRETE (really bad pun, sorry) about the cause of the collapse in any of the reports I've read about WTC7. Why, esdad, do you continue to praise them as definitive?

I think I uncovered the problem already. Their hypothesis of what caused the crash in NO WAY includes a controlled demolition possibility. This is extremely strange since the US was 'under attack' by the 'terrorists' and given all 'they' were able to accomplish that day why not consider that part of the plan was to take out WTC7 (esp. given the tenants in that building)?

I really think you believe what you are saying esdad, I'm just not sure of your motivation. Do you really think that the US Gov't has provided solid evidence of a building failure (I don't see how you possibly could) or is the alternative just to distasteful to even consider?

posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 05:12 PM
Oh one more thing - could someone show me evidence (pictures, news stories, etc.) of another building that fell in the manner of WTC7 that WASN'T demolished in a controlled manner?

That's withstanding esdad's comment about WTC7 using a unique construction (it had to be unique - no other steel framed building in history collapsed due to fire). If someone can show me proof that that was indeed the case then, ok. I won't hold my breath.

Gotta add this - from the aforementioned FEMA report, same page (5-31) VERBATIM:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 AND HOW THEY CAUSED THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE remain unknown at this time" (emphasis added)

FEMA: You see, the fires caused it, but we just don't know how. We just know it was the fires.

top topics

0