Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi,
I believe the detonation programme was carefully controlled and the collapse was indeed "tweaked" to make it look more reasonable that the plane impacts were the sole cause.
As you are probably aware, it is quite difficult convincing people that planes had little to do with the collapse, even though there is clear film of the demolition explosives going off and many witness accounts (as shown in Loose Change 2) of explosions - a fair number recorded on news broadcasts.
Intelligent people who argue over the particular mode of collapse often seem to forget the collapse of WTC7 - which was not even hit by a plane.
However, I was fooled for almost 3 years.
More info below about the collisons etc:
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE AN IMPACT FORCE GREATER THAN THAT OF A BOEING 767
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
Fact: The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B: 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER: 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707: 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767: 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707: 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767: 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, I.e., at maximum gross weight (read full tanks). 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:
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft-lbs (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed:
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft-lbs (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.
I.e., 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 (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 (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.
Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. Regardless, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying only about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires.
It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.
Food for thought...
Ever wonder why the hijackers picked aircraft leaving Boston, when they could just as easily have hijacked aircraft from one of the New York city airports (LaGuardia, Newark or JFK)? Hijacking aircraft from Boston meant that they had to deviate from their designated routes while still a long way from Manhattan.
The longer flight paths, and the greater distance from their targets equate to far greater risk. Surely the hijackers would have known all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as their aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes (which, strangely, did not happen on 9/11/2001).
So why pick aircraft that would be hundreds of miles away from their targets, when they had a choice of aircraft available right in New York?
Why did they ignore common sense and not keep airborne exposure to an absolute minimum?
They must have known the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly have intercepted them before they reached their targets? (and would have certainly shot down the second 767 after seeing what happened to the first?).
After all, it was a known fact that wayward aircraft — even little trainers — had been intercepted by fighters 67 times in the previous 9 months. So why would the hijackers risk these long flights back to their targets?
Could the reason for this strange decision have had anything to do with the security company that provided services to the airports from which the hijackers took off, as well as to the airlines whose airplanes they hijacked?
Wouldn’t a “friendly” security company make matters a lot easier?
The firm that provided security for the airports, the two airlines, AND for the entire World Trade Center complex was Stratasec.
Is it a strange coincidence that President Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principals in Stratasec, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002?
The 9/11 Commission, if it did not already know about Marvin Bush's connection to this company, could very easily have learned about it.
Given all this information available to its research staff, one would think the 9/11 Commission would have at least interviewed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker. But a search of The 9/11 Commission Report reveals no mention of either man’s name, nor any mention at all of Stratesec or its prior name, Securacom.
If the perpetrators of this crime had complete control of the company that provided security for the airports, WTC, United Airlines and American Airlines, would not the orchestration and execution of the various components of the attack have been a relatively uncomplicated matter?
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
125.28 KB |
| Viewed: |
121 Time(s) |
|
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
