Topic: For the conspiracy theorists here

[JLeather]

History lesson (mostly from Wikipedia).  The WTC project was initiated in 1960 and ground broke in 1966.  Most of the design was finalized in late '61 or early '62.

Boeing 747 - First produced in 1969, first flown in 1970.  A few years too new to have been considered in the planning stages of the WTC.

Boeing 737 - First produced in 1967.  Still too new

Boeing 727 - First produced in 1963.  Closer, but still not likely to have been considered.

Boeing 707/720 - 1958 to 1978 production run.  "...dominated passenger air transport in the 1960s and remained common through the 1970" (Wikipedia).  This is likely to be the largest plane that was factored in during the actual design of the WTC.

Boeing 767 - This was the make of the plane that actually hit the WTC on 9/11, specifically a 767-223ER

Some tech data:
Boeing 707/720 - Maximum takeoff weight 222,000 lbs.

Boeing 767-223ER - Maximum takeoff weight 395,000 lbs.

The fact is that the 767 that hit the WTC was nearly double the size of the largest transport plane that would have been factored into the design of the buildings.  I'd say that a difference of 173,000 lbs traveling at 500 knots makes a large difference in calculations.  It should further be noted that the first tower stood through the first plane attack.  It wasn't until the second attack that a tower fell, and the first one still stood for more than 25 minutes after the collapse of Tower 2.  I'd say that given the larger size of the 767 this shows remarkable design.  Also, the design was to protect against "accidental" incursions with airplanes.  I doubt the designers expected two consecutive "accidental" plane crashes within 17 minutes.  Interesting, huh Terry?

[eldar]

The designers were in on the conspiracy. It was planned but in the mid-50s! 

[Cvillechopper]

The designers were in on the conspiracy. It was planned but in the mid-50s! 

Only if you consider aliens having implanted their minds with certain design ideas being "in on it".  The aliens just wanted another test to see how the ant farm we call earth would react to a certain situation.  Let's nuke the aliens... we've got a better chance at hitting them than catching Osama.

[eldar]

Hard to catch someone who doesnt exist. Now aliens are real!

[sandcastcb750]

We used to say in the army;

"Nuke'm till they glow, then shoot them in the dark"

"When the balloon goes up!"

"The big picture"

[DammitDan]

Jleather,

Your data, which you failed to directly cite, is skewed.  You failed to mention important facts that would have tainted your argument...

The data you took from wikipedia states the GTOW of a Boeing 707 is 222,000 lbs.  However, there were several variants of the Boeing 707, two of which were (taken from http://portal.aircraft-info.net/article21.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707):

707-320B: A re-engining of the stretched version was undertaken in parallel with the -120B, using the same JT3D-3 turbofans and incorporating many of the same airframe upgrades as well. Takeoff gross weight was increased to 335,000 lb (152,000 kg). 175 of the 707-300B aircraft were produced, as well as upgrades from original -320 models. One of the final orders was by the Iranian Government for 14 707-3J9C aircraft capable of VIP transportation, communication, and inflight refuelling tasks.
707-320C: A convertible passenger/freight configuration which ultimately became the most widely produced variant of the 707, the -320C added a strengthened floor and a new cargo door to the -320B model. 335 of these variants were built, including a small number with uprated JT3D-7 engines and a takeoff gross weight of 336,000 lb (152,000 kg). Despite the convertible option, a number of these were delivered as pure freighters.

Of those variants, the 320B being developed in tandem with the 120C in 1958 and the 320C shortly following, their GTOW were 335,000-336,000 lbs.  Closes the gap a little with the 767, doesn't it?

Don't post numbers unless you're sure they're the ONLY numbers (or you don't expect people to actually follow up your research).

[edbikerii]

Well, I guess none of you conspiracy believers actually saw the buildings with the big, smoking holes in them and the people jumping to their deaths.

If you had, you would be aware that they both stood for quite some time before they eventually collapsed onto themselves.  In fact, an amazingly large number of people managed to escape from WTC 1,  WTC 2, and the surrounding buildings before they all were ultimately destroyed.

I wonder why, if there were mythical explosives planted in the buildings as many conspiracy theorists have postulated, would the mythical conspirators not have simply detonated the explosives upon the airplanes' impacts?  Why would the mythical conspirators take the risk of letting the buildings stand for hours before detonating the explosives?

What if the mythical triggering devices were damaged or became inaccessible due to the impact of the giant airplanes?  Then where would the mythical conspirators have been?  Had these mythical devices not detonated, then the (non-existent) evidence would have been there for all too see.  This ignores the question of how and when these mythical explosives could have been planted, unnoticed, in the first place.  Ever notice how long it takes demolition crews to plant explosives in buildings that are being demolished?

Having visited the World Trade Center many times before September 11, 2001, and then seeing the destruction first-hand a couple days after, I was not the least bit surprised that WTC7 caught on fire and eventually went down.  Witness also the serious damage that was done to the Deutsche Bank building, which was completely across Liberty Street from the WTC complex.  Let's not forget that hundreds of firefighters that would have been fighting the fires in WTC 7 were killed when towers 1 and 2 went down, too.

Note also that there was no attempt made to hide the details of the attacks and the destruction from ordinary folk.  There were over 40,000 police officers, firemen, and construction workers that had access to that site after the destruction.  Many of these men and women were enlisted "out of the blue" to help with the lengthy recovery and cleanup operations.   Over the several months that followed, not a single shred of evidence of any conspiracy was uncovered by these men and women.

[eldar]

If I put a nail thru your tire and you get a flat, what evidence is there that I did it? None, very easy to drive over a nail. My point is that if it was deliberate, then I am sure the people behind it were smart enough to hide any possible evidence or make it disappear before it could be verified.

[Rocking-M]

See Ed, the problem is no building that I'm aware of has ever caught fire and just fell down
like a demolition project. Maybe you could site other examples of such? And yes, that is what
your saying happened cause you just said that the buildings though struck didn't collapse till the
fire caused it and the same with the un-struck building.

By the way, I don't think you can site any other such examples of such collapses, but by all means
have a go at it.

[JLeather]

Jleather,

Your data, which you failed to directly cite, is skewed.  You failed to mention important facts that would have tainted your argument...

The data you took from wikipedia states the GTOW of a Boeing 707 is 222,000 lbs.  However, there were several variants of the Boeing 707, two of which were (taken from http://portal.aircraft-info.net/article21.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707):

707-320B: A re-engining of the stretched version was undertaken in parallel with the -120B, using the same JT3D-3 turbofans and incorporating many of the same airframe upgrades as well. Takeoff gross weight was increased to 335,000 lb (152,000 kg). 175 of the 707-300B aircraft were produced, as well as upgrades from original -320 models. One of the final orders was by the Iranian Government for 14 707-3J9C aircraft capable of VIP transportation, communication, and inflight refuelling tasks.
707-320C: A convertible passenger/freight configuration which ultimately became the most widely produced variant of the 707, the -320C added a strengthened floor and a new cargo door to the -320B model. 335 of these variants were built, including a small number with uprated JT3D-7 engines and a takeoff gross weight of 336,000 lb (152,000 kg). Despite the convertible option, a number of these were delivered as pure freighters.

Of those variants, the 320B being developed in tandem with the 120C in 1958 and the 320C shortly following, their GTOW were 335,000-336,000 lbs.  Closes the gap a little with the 767, doesn't it?

Don't post numbers unless you're sure they're the ONLY numbers (or you don't expect people to actually follow up your research).

First of all, my data came entirely from Wikipedia for the Boeing numbers.  Secondly, as I stated, the towers were designed in the early 60's (1961/1962) in order to be approved and breaking ground by 1966.  The variants of the Boeing 707 came later.  The heaviest one they could have seen was the 707-120B, 257,000 pounds, which was first test flown in June 1960.  The 320C came too late to be factored in.  There is still a GROSS difference in scale and weight between the 707-120 and the 767-223.

[JLeather]

See Ed, the problem is no building that I'm aware of has ever caught fire and just fell down
like a demolition project. Maybe you could site other examples of such? And yes, that is what
your saying happened cause you just said that the buildings though struck didn't collapse till the
fire caused it and the same with the un-struck building.

By the way, I don't think you can site any other such examples of such collapses, but by all means
have a go at it.

I again refer you to the beer-can structure analogy.  The WTC fell differently because it was structured differently than any other skyscraper.  The outside walls supported the majority of the loads.  When the plane demolished these outside supports the upper floors collapsed onto the lower ones and the momentum crushed the remainder of the building generally downward.

And, I would like you to show me how you take a steel structure, blow it out in a "demolition" manner, and then have it stand there for another 20 minutes before it falls straight down. 

[DammitDan]

Secondly, as I stated, the towers were designed in the early 60's (1961/1962) in order to be approved and breaking ground by 1966.  The variants of the Boeing 707 came later.  The heaviest one they could have seen was the 707-120B, 257,000 pounds, which was first test flown in June 1960.  The 320C came too late to be factored in.

This is incorrect.

The 320B variant I described (which had a GTOW of 335,000 lbs) was developed in tandem with the 120B in 1958-1959 and first flown commercially in 1960.  The 320C variant (the most popular version of the plane) came slightly later.  But the 320B was still available and flying commercially when the towers were being developed.

It's speculation to assume that they weren't included in the design (and quite convenient for your argument to leave their numbers out).  You don't think designers would have taken the largest and heaviest aircraft currently being flown into account when designing the towers?

Not to mention the fact that the 747 had a gross take-off weight of over 800,000 lbs...  But nevermind that.  They weren't flying until the building was already under construction for 3 years.

[sandcastcb750]

Here is the deal; you can try it at home.

Take a straw and hold it vertical on the table. Now it is a column. Push down on it and with a little force, it buckles. Now, have someone hold the center of the straw so that it can't buckle in the middle. Push again and it will buckle above and below the place where someone is holding it. But, this time it will resist more force as you push down on it. The distance between the side supports is the unsupported length of the column.

Lengthen the distance, such as when the airplane took out a floor or two, and the column will support less. Cook the steel to 1500 to 2000 degF and the column will have even less strength. This part of the experiment won't work at home by lighting a fire to the straw. You have to assume steel, like butter, becomes softer with heat.

The so called explosions below the collasping building looked like the pressure from above blowing out the windows. I witnessed a planned building implosion at close distance and it appeared different to me.

To me, just a case of desert kamakazis

[eldar]

So are we saying the buildings were built with straws or beercans?

http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm

[Rocking-M]

See Ed, the problem is no building that I'm aware of has ever caught fire and just fell down
like a demolition project. Maybe you could site other examples of such? And yes, that is what
your saying happened cause you just said that the buildings though struck didn't collapse till the
fire caused it and the same with the un-struck building.

By the way, I don't think you can site any other such examples of such collapses, but by all means
have a go at it.

I again refer you to the beer-can structure analogy.  The WTC fell differently because it was structured differently than any other skyscraper.  The outside walls supported the majority of the loads.  When the plane demolished these outside supports the upper floors collapsed onto the lower ones and the momentum crushed the remainder of the building generally downward.

And, I would like you to show me how you take a steel structure, blow it out in a "demolition" manner, and then have it stand there for another 20 minutes before it falls straight down. 

I think your wrong with the sturcture analogy. It was build with centered supporting columns not exterior as you describe with your beer can comparison.
Further, even if I accepted your beer can theory it wouldn't crash straight down. Since one side was hit it would buckle on that side and topple to the side.

"The interior had 47 columns, all concentrated in the core."

The exterior, "The perimeter columns supported virtually all lateral loads, such as wind loads, and shared the gravity loads with the core columns.[7"

So you can see the beer can analogy again doesn't stick.

The idea that heat had anything to do with the interior support collapse is idiotic. This was no blast furnace type of heat.
Evidently you've never worked with a forge or a torch.

[techy5025]

As I understand it, the lateral beams that supported the floors were coated (or were supposed to have been coated) with a material that would insulate them from heat sources...ie burning fuel. However, a lot of the coating was evidently not applied correctly or was knocked off by the impact of the planes. This allowed this light structure to eventually melt with the result that  the floors collapsed no doubt helped by the damage to the exterior vertical support structure. The jet fuel burned out fairly quickly, but by then lots of other stuff was burning.

Once one floor collapsed, it was all over. I would love to see the analysis that attempts to predict the result of events such as this.   

Jim

[Terry in Australia]

Didn't the earlier car bomb under the WTC destroy two floors? I wonder why it didn't collapse then? 

[techy5025]

The earlier bomb was not directly under the towers but rather in the parking garage...offset a bit. It did do major damage.

Jim

[Klark Kent]

yeah, the beer can analogy bothers me much like the table analogy.  when i kick out one leg of MY table, it falls over to that side, not straight down on the other three legs.  but that's just MY table, maybe i should keep quiet.

the real puzzle is why are we left to analyze and argue this on our own- can we not all agree that what has been offered in explanation is not satisfactory?  THere is a reason that those who belive the sky is blue are held sane, while those who assert that the blue appearance is simply an optical illussion (it is) are considered to be dilbertian scientist types who know too much for their own good.  Jleather has a bunch of 'facts' that help him understand what happened that day- yet there are people here who are not so assuaged.  I have been able to find 'facts' also, and they do not make me feel as secure in the official, or any other,  account as JL.  why would this be?  why the disconnect and dissonance amongst otherwise likeminded people?  this is not a what kind of oil is best thread.  this is not subjective.  we can all agree on a lot of things and debate the rest, but this seems to fall into a third category.  a category of things that are not just subject to fact and scrutiny, but a third class of things which we are not supposed to know.  rather than be frustrated a lot of us would choose to accept what is most popularly accepted- I am one of them.  But i am also intrigued by the possibility of changing what is popularly accepted.  if I am wrong than it should be easy enough to prove- but if i am right, then we are in for one hell of a ride- one thing i think we all agree is a worthwhile pursuit. 

by the way terry, i have been throwing my popcorn at the back of your head pretty much the whole time.
-KK

[DammitDan]

by the way terry, i have been throwing my popcorn at the back of your head pretty much the whole time.

I don't think it's been bothering him, for obvious reasons 

[Terry in Australia]

Was that stuff popcorn? Damn, i thought it was dandruff KK, and I went out and bought a special bottle of shampoo to treat those big flakes, so I reckon you now owe me 10 bucks!

Well speaking of accepted versions of events, it seems to me that thinking people who questioned the unlikely official version of events regarding 9/11, then the "WMD" scare mongering that provided an opportunity to invade Iraq etc, are labelled "Un-Patriotic", and "Kooks", for having a conflicting opinion. It's just the "America, love it or leave it" mentality, not particularly intelligent, but certainly popular.

Oh, and I just crushed another beer can, and it fell over sideways.......... 

[Demon67]

Terry what kind of beer? It may have a bearing on strength tests.
Bill.

[Cvillechopper]

Terry what kind of beer? It may have a bearing on strength tests.
Bill.

+1

I'd also say the angle of compression could be directly effected by the numbers of tests you've performed (assuming you're using empty beer cans). 

[troppo]

well from the pictures in the mugshot gallery, i`d say terry could crush a beer can with a look

[edbikerii]

Anyone who had ever seen the towers in person would know that "toppling over" was impossible.   We're not talking about a smokestack or a fencepost here.  The towers were extremely massive -- at least a city block square each -- making "toppling over" impossible.  The only way those towers could possibly have gone down was exactly the way they did go down -- collapsing onto themselves.

Yes, of course there were some supporting columns in the center of the buildings.  How else could there have been the massive elevator banks that served the buildings?  Still, relative to the massive structures of the towers, those "47 beams" (to quote someone else here) were trivial.  Have another look at a picture of the towers and you can clearly see the exterior structural components that held the building up.

Remember also, when the towers collapsed there were no lateral forces on the buildings.  The airplanes had collided a considerable time earlier.

All this crap about melting the beams is irrelevant too.  It isn't necessary to melt beams in order to get them to warp from stress and heat.