It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Big planes cause big damage

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:57 AM
link   
With all the 9/11 conspiracys going around, the one fact most of them step around is how much damage a 200 tonne plane hitting the towers at 500mph will do. Could it be that the towers were designed so strong, that any weaker, they might have went down much quicker than they did, in the hour and hour and half they had thousands of people lives were saved because the towers were so strong.
Those planes were going around 250 metres per second, the towers would have received a tremendous amount of damage, the fire could of been the final nail in the coffin, as the top weight of the building was too much for the damaged few floors beneath, and collapse.
Theres still many questions to answer, but i've not heard any answers on how any building could take such a hit.




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   
To the reasonable, rational and those with a modicum of deductive reasoning you're absolutely right.

But for those that see “them” around every corner, it can't possibly be that simple. No, by golly, it had to be something else. No amount of reason, math, physics, physical evidence, eye witness testimony, thousands of man hours by actual experts investigating the collapses, etc will persuade those who are so unhinged from reality as to insist holograms were used, as but one example.

Welcome to the board but be prepared for the accusations of being one of “them”.

Stared and flagged!



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Indeed, notice how they always focus on the misleading jet fuel explaination while playing down or even ignoring the head-on collision aspect. As seen in Loose Change: "You still believe jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?"



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The official 9/11 explanation is so incredibly full of holes that I frankly do not understand how anybody can accept it. When you have busloads of architects and engineers screaming "COVER-UP", something is most certainly wrong. These people are experts on the subject, to simply dismiss their professional opinions is asinine! Evidence of thermate inside 1, 2, and 7 was found some time ago. Plenty of government officials from other countries have stated that they don't believe the official explanation. 2000 degree hotspots full of molten metal under the rubble for weeks, and you think jet fuel kept that going? diesel? PLEAAAASE. they just do not burn hot enough.

www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
To the reasonable, rational and those with a modicum of deductive reasoning you're absolutely right.

But for those that see “them” around every corner, it can't possibly be that simple. No, by golly, it had to be something else. No amount of reason, math, physics, physical evidence, eye witness testimony, thousands of man hours by actual experts investigating the collapses, etc will persuade those who are so unhinged from reality as to insist holograms were used, as but one example.

Welcome to the board but be prepared for the accusations of being one of “them”.

Stared and flagged!


Correct.

And mpriebe81 just illustrated your point.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpriebe81
The official 9/11 explanation is so incredibly full of holes that I frankly do not understand how anybody can accept it.

Because we aren't seeing the holes you guys are.


Originally posted by mpriebe81
When you have busloads of architects and engineers screaming "COVER-UP", something is most certainly wrong.

If this were actually the case then you'd have something.

But last time I checked there weren't any "busloads" of dissident experts screaming bloody murder, if you look you'll find that the overwhelming majority of professionals, both domestic and international, do not contest the official findings.


Originally posted by mpriebe81These people are experts on the subject

Sez who? What are their credentials? What papers have they previously had published in reputable peer-reviewed journals?


Originally posted by mpriebe81to simply dismiss their professional opinions is asinine!

This happens because they are not regarded as highly by their peers in the academic community, who find their claims questionable at best, disturbing and unscientific at worst.


Originally posted by mpriebe81
Evidence of thermate inside 1, 2, and 7 was found some time ago.

Memes do not consitute evidence.


Originally posted by mpriebe81
Plenty of government officials from other countries have stated that they don't believe the official explanation

Disbelief does not constitute contradicting evidence.


Originally posted by mpriebe81
2000 degree hotspots full of molten metal under the rubble for weeks, and you think jet fuel kept that going? diesel? PLEAAAASE. they just do not burn hot enough.

See all of the above.


Originally posted by mpriebe81ttp://www.ae911truth.org/

How about giving the side with tangible evidence an objective ear?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I definately believe that planes hit the twin towers, however, I do not beleive that a plane hit the Penatgon because there was hardly any damage done there at all, just like a 20 ft hole



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 



What?!?! A thread for the non-tinfoil hat wearing folk?

No way.

Seriously, we need more of this.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The buildings were DESIGNED to take a impact from a 707 FULLY LOADED.

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

In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.

Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.

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.

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.

Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.

Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one). Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.

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 more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.

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 at cruise speed, 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 has been estimated to be 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 has been estimated to be 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.

So once again I say to the gov shills here who are trying to instigate ww3..

When you can explain why wtc buildings 5 & 6 STOOD, even after towers 1&2 COLLAPSED ON TOP OF THEM, then I just might listen.

STOP TRYING TO REWRITE FACTS.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   


I definately believe that planes hit the twin towers, however, I do not beleive that a plane hit the Penatgon because there was hardly any damage done there at all, just like a 20 ft hole


This is the usual remark from the conspiracy loons - the hole you
are describing is the EXIT HOLE punched into the C ring wall by
the aircraft debris including piece of landing gear.

The ENTRY HOLE in the E ring (outermost section) was over 75 ft
This corresponds to distance between engines - wingtips were
sheared off by impacts with lampposts/construction trailer/steam
vault and by the Pentagon exterior (which is solid limestone backed up
by brick). The section between engines in the heaviest and strongest
piece of the aircraft containing the engines, wing spars, landing gear
and main keel beam of aircraft.

Read new book FIREFIGHT by Patrick Creed & Rick Newman

Authors interviewed firefighters and Pentagon personnel who were
there and carried out rescues and fought the fires - not some fantasy
cooked up by conspiracy loons



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by john_locke78
 


To add to logical explanations, the south american janitor who was in "9/11 mysteries" who claimed heard and scene explosions in the basement at the time of the impacts,as the planes hit he would have heard the sound as it traveled at the speed of sound from the impact zone down to the basement in about a second, also the explosions he saw would have been the elevators flying down as the impact would have destroyed a few elevators, anyone scene 'the Matrix' when the elevator hits the ground, a big explosion, could it have been that?.
We still need answers for molten rivers flowing underneath groung zero for 10 weeks after 9/11, what would cause that?
But again using films to give visual reference to 9/11, for the Petagon impacts, in the last James bond film, a commerical aircraft is about to land but pulls up as theres a car chase on the runway, the force of the planes jets even at a low landing speed (180-250mph)? sends a police carflying, so how could you possibly fly at 500mph at that height" light poles were cut a mile from the petagon.The thrust from the engines would not allow a plane to go atleast its lenght to the ground, like two opposite ends of a magnet the force repeles each away, ie the ground and the engines, its been expanled in better detail on this site but you know what im getting at.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by john_locke78
 


Please don't use movies as research.

Elevators don't explode if they drop. They have breaks that deploy if the cables fail, and at the bottom of elevator shafts there is usually a spring mechanism to slow it down.

But having said that there is no evidence that elevator cables were cut anyway, and the upper floor els didn't go all the way to the bottom.


Actually the cable is also part of a safety feature. When under tension the cable pulls levers that remove chock things from slots in the shaft walls, if the cable breaks then the chocks immediately spring into the slots and stop the lift.

Source



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
To the reasonable, rational and those with a modicum of deductive reasoning you're absolutely right.


Please use one of these big words to describe how wtc7 fell, or at least how it was natural.

Making broad generalizations (them, tinfoil hatters, etc) doesn't excuse anyone from having to back up something they say.

Ok, big airplanes hit two huge buildings, and they both fell exactly the same way. So did a third big building over a hundred yards away.

If you're going to call bull# on an entire theory you need to include the entire theory, not just the part you think you have an idea about.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


If the wings were sheared off then why don't we see them in front of the building? Where did the engines go?

Also the hole wasn't 75 ft. There is a hole of about 18' and a lot of facade that fell off in front of the building, look at the pics there is a lot of building rubble in front of the building.
You can see columns still standing, nothing hit those columns, that's just the facade that has collapsed from the explosion inside the building.






posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
To answer the OP's question:


The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

...The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

We developed the concept of and made use of the fire-rated shaft-wall partition system, which is now widely used in place of masonry and plaster walls. At that time, masonry was the standard enclosure for elevators, stairs, duct shafts, and other internal structures. The partition system eliminates the need for within-the-shaft scaffolding, which was the common practice, provides more smoke-proof stairs and shafts, and improves safety on the job site. The shaft-wall completely changed the nature of the structural system for the two towers, making them the first of a new kind of high-rise building.

A computerized system was conceived and developed for ordering structural steel and producing shop drawings for structural steel, as well as the operation of digitally directed tools, all directly from digital information developed as a part of our design.

When the two towers were finished, the World Trade Center stood proud, strong, and tall. Indeed, with little effort, the towers shrugged off the efforts of terrorist bombers in 1993 to bring them down. The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone. So I will simply state matters of fact:

[continued] www.nae.edu...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman


I definately believe that planes hit the twin towers, however, I do not beleive that a plane hit the Penatgon because there was hardly any damage done there at all, just like a 20 ft hole


This is the usual remark from the conspiracy loons - the hole you
are describing is the EXIT HOLE punched into the C ring wall by
the aircraft debris including piece of landing gear.

The ENTRY HOLE in the E ring (outermost section) was over 75 ft
This corresponds to distance between engines - wingtips were
sheared off by impacts with lampposts/construction trailer/steam
vault and by the Pentagon exterior

What's worse -- being called a "loon" or being known as a liar?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   


If the wings were sheared off then why don't we see them in front of the building? Where did the engines go?


The wingtips are light gauge aluminium and are shredded into "metallic
confetti. The engines or what was left after slamming through building
were found inside in the debris pile left. What was left of the engines
were the central rotor shaft and bore little resemblence to the
original engine . This lead number of people to claim that they
were not from 757 - the large fan section in front and the turbine discs
were snapped off by the impact.







As for the size of the hole it was the FIRE CHIEFS at the scene who estimated the size before the collapse. Who do you believe the
Fire Chief putting out the fires or some clown looking at pictures?






The hole made by flight 77 extends along the wing line, left and right of the fuselage hole. It is not a cookie-cutter hole: that simply cannot happen when a plane hits a heavily- reinforced concrete building. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at a 43-degree angle to its west wall. It came from the right of the photo below.








Here's a wider view. Note the total destruction of masonry, and the reinforced columns broken and bent in the direction of impact:–/q67lv




Due to the presence of smoke and firefighting operations after the explosion at the Pentagon, no single photograph shows the full extent of the damage to the facade before the collapse of the overhanging section. However, the maximum extent of punctures to the facade have been determined by compositing a number of photographs. This process allows us to determine the dimensions of the region with punctured walls:

about 96 feet wide across the first floor
about 18 feet wide across the second floor
about than 26 feet high in the center



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Kulturcidist
 


9-11 Commission Report Implicitly Discredited by More Than 100 Architects and EngineersThe 9-11 Commission Report did not deal with the evidence that supports the conclusion that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 (WTC 7) were destroyed by controlled demolition. (See the list on the right column of our homepage.) Indeed, the Report avoided even mentioning the complete, symmetrical, and rapid collapse of WTC 7, although that collapse was unprecedented in the 100-plus-year history of steel-framed skyscrapers. Our members call for a serious 9-11 investigation that looks squarely at all the relevant evidence. Join us!

www.ae911truth.org...

You would have to be a foo,l to not ask questions.

There is however a growing body of very solid evidence regarding these "collapses" that has emerged in the last couple of years - gaining ground even in the mainstream media. This new evidence casts grave doubt upon the theories of the 9/11 building collapse "experts" as well as the official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST.
It lays out a solid convincing case which architects & engineers will readily see: that the 3 WTC high-rise buildings were destroyed by both classic and novel forms of controlled demolition. You will find the evidence here in our website as well as at the linked websites. We hope you will find the courage and take the necessary time to review each section thoroughly.
After all, if in fact these buildings were professionally demolished with explosives, and since it takes months of planning and engineering to place the explosives, and since these buildings were highly secure from foreign terrorists, then we are presented with a horrible conclusion that we cannot deny: that this entire event must have been planned and orchestrated by a group other than those who are blamed by our Government. The questions raised are numerous and ominous that must be answered in the context of a truly independent unimpeachable congressional investigation with subpoena power.


www.ae911truth.org...

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers
www.journalof911studies.com...

Explosive Ejections of Dust and Pieces
911research.wtc7.net...

World Trade Center 7 was the third skyscraper destroyed on September 11, 2001. It was not hit by a plane. The picture on the left shows WTC 7 after the collapse of the Twin Towers, smoldering in the background.

The final investigative report on its collapse has been postponed several times. At this moment, on the 27th of April 2008 – over 6.5 years after the destruction – it still has not been published.

11syyskuu.blogspot.com...

Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident researcher, has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of WTC 7. He concludes that the short collapse time and low structural resistance "strongly suggest controlled demolition". Kurttila notes that an apple dropped from the height of WTC 7's roof would have taken about 0.5 seconds longer to reach the ground than it took the skyscraper to be completely destroyed.

WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10 meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
and Government Officials Question
the 9/11 Commission Report

130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
480+ Engineers and Architects
110+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
260+ Professors Question 9/11
210+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
140+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals
patriotsquestion911.com...

Because we aren't seeing the holes you guys are.
Right! Would you please tell these people that!

But last time I checked there weren't any "busloads" of dissident experts screaming bloody murder, if you look you'll find that the overwhelming majority of professionals, both domestic and international, do not contest the official findings.

Obviously "YOU" are wrong!

I sense your ARROGANCE, as if everyone is wrong.
So sense YOU have all the Answer, would you please elaborate!



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by john_locke78
 


I recommend, you should read what the REAL pro have to say about Big Planes cause bid damage.

pilotsfor911truth.org...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by john_locke78
 



F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

Aidan Monaghan
03/18/08

Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's

11/30/07 - Many may recall an article we published regarding location of American Airlines Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder (AA 77 FDR) in which we expose the govt story of the flight data recorder being found at the entrance hole and exit hole. Since the article has been published, the MSNBC article we sourced (www.msnbc.msn.com...) no longer exists and now redirects to an irrelevant Newsweek page (www.newsweek.com...). Why would MSNBC want to remove a page which explains the recovery of AA 77 FDR? Is it because we exposed the conflicting reports of location? It gets deeper.
pilotsfor911truth.org...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join