[–] bopper [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

@Are_we__sure thinks commercial airliners can travel at the official given speeds of 500 mph at sea level.

[–] Shizy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Here's an article discussing that the twin towers were designed to withstand a hit from the largest commercial aircraft at the time the buildings were built- a Boeing 707. The planes that hit the towers were larger, 767, but the 707 had more destructive power at cruising speed:

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

[–] KnightsofHubris 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

The buildings did withstand the plane impact. They did not withstand the fire. The spray on foam fire retardant is brittle and the plane crash would have stripped the coating off. Bare steel does not do well in fires.

[–] GoodGodKirk 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Wut? Are you an engineer? The metal used for the buildings can withstand the fires of jet fuel, especially when encased in cement.

It could weaken the metal, which may bend, but that doesn’t explain the tower falling on itself rather than falling to the side where the support was weakened.

[–] Shizy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Oh yay, an are we sure alt!

That's actually incorrect! It wasn't hot enough to melt that steel:

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

[–] Lisa777 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

Too late guys.

[–] Shizy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Oh lookie, a 777. How creative!

[–] Shizy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So bopper, did you know that in 1945 a military plane crashed into the Empire State Building? The building caught on fire, but it didn't collapse into its own footprint shockingly! I wonder what the differences are? I'm sure the military plane was smaller than a commercial airliner, but the twin towers were allegedly designed to withstand a hit by aircraft.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/plane-crashes-into-empire-state-building

It would be nice to get input @clamhurt_legbeard sinc eye seems to have some more knowledge on this type of stuff.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

True stuff. A B-25 WWII bomber hit the Empire State Building while lost in the fog, trying to land.

Let's compare the B-25 crash to a potential Boeing 767 crash. I'm going to maximize damage potential as much as reasonable, when not directly contradicted by evidence.

B-25

Weight: 30,000 lbs (no bomb load)

Speed: 150-200 mph (approach speed)

Fuel: 600 gal of AVGAS (assuming ferry tanks installed but half capacity after their trip)

Boeing 767-200 (UA 175)

Weight: 300,000 lbs (took off 1 hr before crash)

Speed: 200-500 mph (I'll do calculations with claimed radar speed and a much lower speed)

Fuel: 10,000 gal of JET-A

Let's run the numbers.

To calculate inertia, we can use the formula F = ma

The force equals the mass times its acceleration.

B-25

F = 30,000 x 200 = 6,000,000

Boeing 767

F = 300,000 x 200 = 60,000,000

So we see even if the Boeing hit the Twin Towers at half the claimed speed, it would still smash the building with 10x the energy of the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building.

Then the building would have 16x as much fuel soaking everything, and JET-A burns hotter than the B-25's AVGAS.

[–] Shizy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You're awesome! Thanks for breaking it down like that!

[–] Adam_Jensen_ 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You are using velocity in your calculations for acceleration.

You should be comparing kinetic energy ke=.5mv^2

[–] Lisa777 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

It's too late... Get it?

[–] bopper [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yes actually I was a young man of 27 at that time just ask donkey.

I think the twin towers are the only buildings in history that have ever fallen due to fire.

[–] Shizy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think you're right. Isn't it strange they are the only buildings in history that fell due to a fire, when they were specifically designed to still stand after a fire? Hmmmmm

And you're younger than I thought you were 😆

[–] KnightsofHubris 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

That was a small plane flying at low speed while lost in dog. Not a jumbo jet at high speed. The Empire State building was a lot heavier that the WTC, used way more concrete.

[–] new4now 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

heres another vid that might explain what happened

https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g

back to work, break over :)

[–] new4now 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

here's a vid of the making of the towers

https://youtu.be/Jwc49cZKunQ

design and materials used

https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/world-trade-center-construction-unique2.htm

a little more on the buildings and the companies involved

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center

will look through this when I get a chance

[–] Blacksmith21 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

If anything, the hijackers were faked, but the planes were real. Controlled via remote?

[–] bopper [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Yes, or drones, but there seems to be the addition of CGI in some places, not sure tho, or for what purpose. I'd have to go back and re-study it.

[–] Ronin3000 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

By now we all know the truth. How "they" did it has been researched ad nauseum. I think time is better spent researching elsewhere. I mean no disrepspect to you. Just my feeling.

[–] bopper [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You're right, as someone said about JFK, "Some researchers can't get out of Dealey Plaza."

I guess it's only natural to want to know. Honestly, I've grown a bit tired of it, as I did with the JFK killing.

[–] Ronin3000 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's true, I would like to know the truth as well. Who knows, maybe one day.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Inertia is a bitch.

You can shoot styrofoam through the Space Shuttle

If you give it enough inertia.

[–] bopper [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The planes, even if military, could not have been going fast enough for the inertia argument, correct?

[–] bopper [S] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Wings of a plane? With enough inertia? I dunno. You think that clip is completely real?

Just asking.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

How deep did they even go? It turns into dust.

I could easily see a hollow aluminum and titanium box smashing a foot or two into the building and compressing itself into a small accordioned pile of metal and dust.

I doubt it sliced 40ft into the building, and I'm sure it wouldn't need to go far at all to disappear into the building.

I also don't think it's advantageous to make up CG clips entirely. They'd have to crash planes either way. Maybe release some fakery after, but it'd have to line up with what bystanders got.

[–] ilikeskittles 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

Why do you even try Clammy? These people are idiots.

[–] clamhurt_legbeard 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I like answering questions. These auestions are innocent enough.

Very few people work with such mass and speed in their daily lives.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)