Nov 2000 Thread: "If A 707 Hit The World Trade Center?... "

Today a friend showed me this.

It's a thread from November 2000 speculating on the plausibility and results of a 707 hitting the WTC.


IDK. So many here act as if it was some sort of common knowledge or well held belief before 9/11 that the towers could survive such an event. But as this little piece of history shows, not even long-term experts and debtors on it were certain.

So before you think that it's a certainty of belief before reality hits, understand that, in ignorance of what was to come, these people were just as undecided as we are.

Fact is, you'd have to honestly rebuild the wtc and redo it in, idk, the middle of the desert, to truly scientifically test and see what would happen.


Anyway, have a fun time reading the unknowing of our past:

www.airliners.net...

Im trying to look through the replies for any shill replies, a bit hard to explain but if it was a plan, surely some one working for 'them' would be like: 'Who told ya that!' or 'Lets not think about it anymore, move along! move along nothing to see here!'

ok here's one:

User currently offlineTom2katie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted Thu Nov 30 2000 23:30:48 your local time (10 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 268843 times:

You people need a hobby. Can we find something a little less morbid to fantasize about?

You see what I mean? my shill detector is going off on this one.

reply to post by Gorman91


Even the builders explicitly stated "It would survive an impact from an airliner".

Though I don't think this is "proof" of anything, I don't really think we "need" any more proof for the 9/11 inside job.

This is very interesting though. Great find.

S+F

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by Gorman91

 

Even the builders explicitly stated "It would survive an impact from an airliner".

You've got to admit though, an airliner used as a weapon going full-throttle was probably not planned. They most likely made allowances for an impact from an airliner going cruising or landing speed, accidentally hitting the towers, as is what has always happened in the past.

A bigger plane than designed for going at maximum speed (faster than they had when they designed the towers) could not possibly be calculated into the design.

This thread is pretty good too. Recounting 9/11 as it was happening.

Oh wow i cant stop myself from reading that, It seems like a 30-70 split between the people who think it would not collapse and the people who think it will. Instresting link thanks

reply to post by LightAssassin


Capitalism is a helluva motivator to lie.

As I write, I just know that the usual suspects are going to come in flame-on...
Oh, well.

What jumped out at me was the mention of the building toppling.
No mention of disappearing into its own footprint and all the concrete turning to dust.
Topple, to me at least, would mean some part falling off. Part of one building did topple, but never made it to the ground in one piece. Makes you think...

reply to post by Gorman91


posted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Badgered1
As I write, I just know that the usual suspects are going to come in flame-on...
Oh, well.

What jumped out at me was the mention of the building toppling.
No mention of disappearing into its own footprint and all the concrete turning to dust.
Topple, to me at least, would mean some part falling off. Part of one building did topple, but never made it to the ground in one piece. Makes you think...

To be fair, only a third of the concrete made it into the dust. The rest of the cloud was mostly gypsum and fireproofing, which was basically a thick powdery substance sprayed on every single steel member in the towers.

Originally posted by Varemia

To be fair, only a third of the concrete made it into the dust. The rest of the cloud was mostly gypsum and fireproofing, which was basically a thick powdery substance sprayed on every single steel member in the towers.

Since the towers exploded like fuses from the tops-down, and since we are told the sheer weight of the towers created enough energy to pulverize the lower floors, then what was pulverizing every square inch of concrete at the tops of the towers when the destruction sequences began? It doesn't make sense.

reply to post by septic


Sure it does. The huge hammer that was the part above the hole where the plane crashed.

With buildings designed under minimalist little-redundancy ideology, when a few parts go, it all goes. because each floor is meant to support itself at the joint. You don't have to bend, melt, or break the actual iron. Just melt the joints. One floor falls, or partially falls. Then the fire has already damaged the joints beneath that. So it goes. Pretty soon a few floors are going. The lack of return-force in the main core means that they start failing. (this effect can be seen when crushing a paper cup or something). The destabilized main beams can't physically take the force of the building above, and that all comes down onto the already failing floors above, rapidly failing all the joints.

If you'd like to replicate this, purchase some acrylic beams and use a hot clue on them. You will notice that the glue keeps it together, but if you push, the hot clue quickly breaks off the joints and the pieces come toppling down. This is also evidence against an explosion, as most of that steel structure is still in place. Hell, they made a battleship out of some of it. USS New York.

As to what caused the vaporizing of concrete. Concrete has no tensile resistance. Just pressure resistance. The places where there was pressure, such pieces survived. But because this collapse method deals greatly with tensile strength and resistance, most of the concrete was crushed, and the insulation produced the dust at the top, as the previous poster revealed.

haters gonna hate, but screw 'em. I'm learning this stuff every day building models in architecture school. 1500 architects can say what they want, but look up the names and see what they actually say, and how credible they are.

reply to post by Varemia


The cloud was probably mostly fireproofing probably 80 to 90 %. Most of the cloud drifted off and landed in the Hudson River leaving the heaver dust (concrete) to settle. The percentage of concrete is artificial high due to the wind.

It's worth pointing out that some users of airliners.net contacted the FBI after 9/11, alerting them to the existance of the thread in the OP. The guy who posed the question subsequently relayed his experience, having been called up by the FBI in the middle of band practice at college.

reply to post by Gorman91


you need to watch videos of collapses again. and again. and. again.
maybe you'll learn something, mr. architect.

reply to post by psyop911


I have. If there were explosives, why did entire parts of the outer structure stay up as the insides came down? Why did the WTC7 collapse so slowly before its main collapse.

I have concluded it is due to the faulty design philosophy of minimalism and no redundancies. You should always prepare redundancy and multiple ways for structure to flow.

It makes quite good sense that intense flame weakened the joints and sent the floors down, weakening the main strength that brought down the rest. No different than a glue-joint stick model. Once the glue melts, it's all down.

A few people will always state that `When the design engineers calculated the impact weight/speed, they did not take unto account a full speed impact`. Okay, here`s some food for thought - when they calculated the damage a fire could do they assessed this in the worse case scenario, base to top, which would have generated far more heat and obviously would/could affect the whole tower, so, with this in mind, how did a fire lasting around 40+ minutes and roughly 80 storeys above ground level manage to weaken the towers to such an extent, that they just gave in and offered no resistance whatsoever, even though they were designed to take a whole heap more of fire and heat damage?..

I have stated this numerous times - When an engineering company is commissioned to design a building of any stature, covering all aspects of health and safety and structural integrity brought about by human related events and/or acts of God, which could lead to structural weaknesses thus jeopardizing the buildings ability to remain upright, they do this with extreme caution and complex tests and calculations, knowing full well that a building of their design that fails the protocols endorsed by their commission then they are responsible for gross negligence and incompetence resulting in the loss of human lives.

We can safely estimate that 3 towers collapsing due to damage and fire, that had been designed to withstand exactly this, then there must have been blatant design flaws, at the very least why have insurance companies failed to take up this issue and sue the architects and structural designers of the WTC?.

I don't see any discussion of how skyscrapers must be designed to withstand the wind and how that characteristic would be relevant to analyzing the effect of an airline impact also.

The south tower only deflected 15 inches when the plane hit.

psik

reply to post by Seventh


Simple. The fire itself was enough to generate thermite from the materials in the wall, fire retardant, and desk supplies. It would only take a little bit of this reaction at the right location to weaken the joints of the building, not even the solid bars themselves.