Scientists simulate collision with Trade Center Tower

[clamum]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Ryland

Originally posted by: Queasy
It has already been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was impossible that the WTC collapsed just because of the airplanes.

I am pretty sure that kerosene and rabbit cage wire doesn't make a sufficient test to prove that the fire and internal structural couldn't have dropped the WTC.

I can't tell if that is a joke about how stupid the conspiracy theorist are or a demonstration of how stupid conspiracy theorist are.

No doubt. It's just... hahaha... man that must be the best scientific test ever conducted.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Arcex
I have mixed opinions about this. One the one hand, yes, fire can't melt steel. On the other hand, this could be explained simply by saying there were a lot of ways the builders could have cut corners that could have weakened the buildings enough structurally to allow them to collapse when they should have been able to withstand the force of the planes hitting (and the aftermath).

Or, maybe the terrorists snuck explosives into the building the help them bring the towers down, I'd assume we'd have heard about it if that was the case but you never know.

Having said that, I have no doubt that there were plenty of warning signs that were overlooked by the Bush administration and beyond that could have prevented it. Also having said that, I truly believe Bush wasn't upset at all by 9-11 and is glad it happened since it's allowed him to further his goals and increase the profit and power of his Big Business masters.

Let's see.. Bush took office less than 8 months before this happened. How long do you think they were planning it? You're not upset that Clinton allowed Osama's escape from capture several times? You're not upset that Carter aided Afghanistan and various rebels/extremist groups during the Soviet war? You blind yourself with ignorance and hatred.

Oh my God, cause it's almost like I DIDN'T say "Bush administration and beyond", if you're gonna cherry pick parts of my post so you can insert your pre-determined response at least do a better job of it. And the part about how Clinton "allowed" Osama's escape, Clinton came closer to killing Osama with a few missiles than Bush has come with an entire army. And Devil's Advocate, even if you're right and Clinton did "allow" Osama to escape before bombing him, that's a little trick he picked up from Bush Senior.


Next, to everyone who basically said "OMG, you're an idiot for thinking there was a conspiracy." my post actually said "I don't think the building came down just because of the crashes" and then gave 2 very logical reasons that could have contributed to the buildings coming down WITHOUT there being a conspiracy. Don't read one sentence of my post and formulate an argument that goes completely against the rest of my post, I put some thought into what I say and would appreciate it if you at least understand what I write enough to come up with a reasonable response to it.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: R Nilla
Occam's Razor

thanks for the link... none of us knew what you were talking about. :roll:

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Well done. It's important when watching that "cartoon" to remember that many people lost their lives during that sequence of events

The video is very detached emotionally as it should be but I think it's up to us to re-attach ourselves.

When trying to figure out what happened structurally, it's important not to let emotions skew the thought process.

It's best to keep emotions out of it.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I have mixed opinions about this. One the one hand, yes, fire can't melt steel.

Yup, fire can't melt steel. Before high explosives, steel couldn't be cast or shaped in any way. Blacksmiths used to sit idly waiting for the day when they could perform their craft with explosives. And cast iron? Forget about that myth. It's really "blast iron".

 

[MrWizzard]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: Arcex
I have mixed opinions about this. One the one hand, yes, fire can't melt steel. On the other hand, this could be explained simply by saying there were a lot of ways the builders could have cut corners that could have weakened the buildings enough structurally to allow them to collapse when they should have been able to withstand the force of the planes hitting (and the aftermath).

Or, maybe the terrorists snuck explosives into the building the help them bring the towers down, I'd assume we'd have heard about it if that was the case but you never know.

Having said that, I have no doubt that there were plenty of warning signs that were overlooked by the Bush administration and beyond that could have prevented it. Also having said that, I truly believe Bush wasn't upset at all by 9-11 and is glad it happened since it's allowed him to further his goals and increase the profit and power of his Big Business masters.

Let's see.. Bush took office less than 8 months before this happened. How long do you think they were planning it? You're not upset that Clinton allowed Osama's escape from capture several times? You're not upset that Carter aided Afghanistan and various rebels/extremist groups during the Soviet war? You blind yourself with ignorance and hatred.

Oh my God, cause it's almost like I DIDN'T say "Bush administration and beyond", if you're gonna cherry pick parts of my post so you can insert your pre-determined response at least do a better job of it. And the part about how Clinton "allowed" Osama's escape, Clinton came closer to killing Osama with a few missiles than Bush has come with an entire army. And Devil's Advocate, even if you're right and Clinton did "allow" Osama to escape before bombing him, that's a little trick he picked up from Bush Senior.


Next, to everyone who basically said "OMG, you're an idiot for thinking there was a conspiracy." my post actually said "I don't think the building came down just because of the crashes" and then gave 2 very logical reasons that could have contributed to the buildings coming down WITHOUT there being a conspiracy. Don't read one sentence of my post and formulate an argument that goes completely against the rest of my post, I put some thought into what I say and would appreciate it if you at least understand what I write enough to come up with a reasonable response to it.

If those are logical, and you put some thought into your post then you should be able to answer these with no problem.

1. How does fire not melt steel? Since all the material was still there and all the building plans were still available why was there no sign of corners being cut?

2. If it was pre-planted explosives that brought it down then, why did they waist driving a plane into the tower when they could have just blown it up... you said yourself that fire does not melt steel so what was the point? That would be the first time in history they used a tactic like that. If you say it was symbolic why did they not crash it into an object that would have been more symbolic like the white house or congress or the statue of liberty?

3. This is just an unfair statement.

I truly believe Bush wasn't upset at all by 9-11 and is glad it happened since it's allowed him to further his goals and increase the profit and power of his Big Business masters.

This is like me stating you are overjoyed 9-11 happened because it allows you to throw mud on Bush and push your agenda......which is unfair for me to say because I do not know everything about you. Do you know everything about Bush? You have to because if you made that statement without knowing all the facts then it proves you are choosing what is reality and what is fiction, and are choosing to ignore logic.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Queasy
It has already been scientifically proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it was impossible that the WTC collapsed just because of the airplanes.

:laugh: That "experiment" was as scientific as disproving evolution using the Bible.

Originally posted by: Arcex
I have mixed opinions about this. One the one hand, yes, fire can't melt steel.

/:laugh: so hard having trouble breathing...

Did you fail middle school science class? Given sufficient pressure and heat, there is no substance in the universe that cannot be melted. And how the hell do you think steel is made??

Originally posted by: Arcex
On the other hand, this could be explained simply by saying there were a lot of ways the builders could have cut corners that could have weakened the buildings enough structurally to allow them to collapse when they should have been able to withstand the force of the planes hitting (and the aftermath).

This is like saying that automobile manufacturers cut corners because their vehicles can't survive 200 mph collisions. Listen carefully, NO skyscraper on earth could withstand that. It's way way way part the building's design limits. The architects and engineers who built the WTC have even said as much, and it will never with today's modern materials be cost-effective to build such a structure to withstand such a force and impact.

Originally posted by: Arcex
Or, maybe the terrorists snuck explosives into the building the help them bring the towers down, I'd assume we'd have heard about it if that was the case but you never know.

Explosives were completely unneccessary. Nor did the WTCs ever fall faster than free fall. The interior of the buildings was mostly empty space. As each upper floor pancaked downwards, the shock spread throughout the whole building, resulting in an implosion (where multiple floors began collapsing simultaneously).


I wish I could explain to you internet extremist conspiracy theorizing morons just how bad you make the Democratic party look. Prior to 9/11, I was proud to call myself a Democratic on the internet. Moderate and with a very strong libertarian streak, yes, but a Dem nonetheless. Nowadays though, people go to ATPN or Democratic Underground and read the freakin' whacko brainwashed conspiracy theorizing teenage angst communist nonsense that passes for Democratic thought on the internet... and pull the Republican lever. :disgust:

 

[Arcex]

Ok, fine. Let me be more specific, the temperatures present in the World Trade Center buildings after the planes hit them would likely (yes, I said likely) not have been high enough to render the steel weak enough to cause a complete collapse of the buildings after so short (relatively speaking) a time based on the stated durability and specs of the buildings. It is also highly likely that the buildings simply were not as strong as the manufacturers claimed, there are a million ways to cut corners on a construction project of that magnitude.

Happy?

Next, I merely stated a possible theory that in addition to crashing the planes into the buildings the terrorists, THE TERRORISTS, also snuck explosives in to HELP bring the towers down. That's what I said in my first post and here it is repeated.

Last, I don't need to know every thing about Bush and every thought that has crossed his synapses to form my own opinion of him based on my observations of his politics, his history, and his statements.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Ok, fine. Let me be more specific, the temperatures present in the World Trade Center buildings after the planes hit them would likely (yes, I said likely) not have been high enough to render the steel weak enough to cause a complete collapse of the buildings after so short (relatively speaking) a time based on the stated durability and specs of the buildings. It is also highly likely that the buildings simply were not as strong as the manufacturers claimed, there are a million ways to cut corners on a construction project of that magnitude.

Happy?

No, because you're still completely wrong.
There was more than 11,000 gallons of kerosene on EACH plane, kerosene has a heating value of 18,500 BTUs/lb, a gallon of kerosene weighs almost 7 lbs., meaning that the total heat output of the burning kerosene of each plane in each building was approaching 1,424,500,000 BTUs (yes, 1.4 Billion BTUs). Or, if you prefer 1,502,177,985,000 joules (read: 417,271,663 kilowatt-hours, or 417 gigawatts).
Next, a loaded 757 weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. and they each struck the WTCs at approximately 625 mph. F=ma. You do the fsckin' math.

It's a miracle of and testament to modern structural engineering that the buildings didn't collapse on impact, and yet we have conspiracy theory idiots spouting nonsense about planted explosives and builders cutting corners...

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Arcex
Ok, fine. Let me be more specific, the temperatures present in the World Trade Center buildings after the planes hit them would likely (yes, I said likely) not have been high enough to render the steel weak enough to cause a complete collapse of the buildings after so short (relatively speaking) a time based on the stated durability and specs of the buildings. It is also highly likely that the buildings simply were not as strong as the manufacturers claimed, there are a million ways to cut corners on a construction project of that magnitude.

Happy?

No, because you're still completely wrong.
There was more than 11,000 gallons of kerosene on EACH plane, kerosene has a heating value of 18,500 BTUs/lb, a gallon of kerosene weighs almost 7 lbs., meaning that the total heat output of the burning kerosene of each plane in each building was approaching 1,424,500,000 BTUs (yes, 1.4 Billion BTUs). Or, if you prefer 1,502,177,985,000 joules (read: 417,271,663 kilowatt-hours, or 417 gigawatts).
Next, a loaded 757 weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. and they each struck the WTCs at approximately 625 mph. F=ma. You do the fsckin' math.

It's a miracle of and testament to modern structural engineering that the buildings didn't collapse on impact, and yet we have conspiracy theory idiots spouting nonsense about planted explosives and builders cutting corners...

I could go on to the internet and grab a bunch of psuedo-science numbers that explain how it's not possible for the buildings to have collapsed based solely on the plane crashes and resulting fire, I'm not gonna do that cause I frankly don't have the time. MY point isn't that there is some conspiracy that the government destroyed the buildings, I never said that, but people like you are yelling at me (figuratively speaking, of course) saying I'm ruining the Democratic party by spouting conspiracy theories. Which part of my statements is a conspiracy theory? Cause if you tell me contractors cutting corners on a building is a conspiracy you're crazier than I am.

I'm not saying that is absolutely why the buildings collapsed, I'm just taking the information I've read and trying to reconcile it with the facts. You say the architects and engineers who built the WTC have said they shouldn't have been able to even withstand the crash, I recall several statements to the contrary, but the end result is I'm not an expert and neither are you, and either way, what anyone said years ago before it happened would have been speculation at best. My point is its possible the planes hitting would be enough to bring the towers down, and its possible it wasn't.

Oh, and its a conspiracy theory that the terrorists would have tried to plant explosives in the building? Yeah, cause they didn't bomb the building back in 93 or anything.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I could go on to the internet and grab a bunch of psuedo-science numbers that explain how it's not possible for the buildings to have collapsed based solely on the plane crashes and resulting fire, I'm not gonna do that cause I frankly don't have the time. MY point isn't that there is some conspiracy that the government destroyed the buildings, I never said that, but people like you are yelling at me (figuratively speaking, of course) saying I'm ruining the Democratic party by spouting conspiracy theories. Which part of my statements is a conspiracy theory? Cause if you tell me contractors cutting corners on a building is a conspiracy you're crazier than I am.

I'm not saying that is absolutely why the buildings collapsed, I'm just taking the information I've read and trying to reconcile it with the facts. You say the architects and engineers who built the WTC have said they shouldn't have been able to even withstand the crash, I recall several statements to the contrary, but the end result is I'm not an expert and neither are you, and either way, what anyone said years ago before it happened would have been speculation at best. My point is its possible the planes hitting would be enough to bring the towers down, and its possible it wasn't.

Oh, and its a conspiracy theory that the terrorists would have tried to plant explosives in the building? Yeah, cause they didn't bomb the building back in 93 or anything.

The Force is weak in this one.

Sorry, this is actual science here, not politics or religion. It's not fuzzy, there are precise numbers involved here. Not only that, but going from my statement that no building in the world could survive such an impact, and that it will never be cost effective to do so with modern materials, and twisting that to mean that I said that contractors don't cut corners... just makes you look like an asshole.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, because you're still completely wrong.
There was more than 11,000 gallons of kerosene on EACH plane, kerosene has a heating value of 18,500 BTUs/lb, a gallon of kerosene weighs almost 7 lbs., meaning that the total heat output of the burning kerosene of each plane in each building was approaching 1,424,500,000 BTUs (yes, 1.4 Billion BTUs). Or, if you prefer 1,502,177,985,000 joules (read: 417,271,663 kilowatt-hours, or 417 gigawatts).
Next, a loaded 757 weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. and they each struck the WTCs at approximately 625 mph. F=ma. You do the fsckin' math.

It's a miracle of and testament to modern structural engineering that the buildings didn't collapse on impact, and yet we have conspiracy theory idiots spouting nonsense about planted explosives and builders cutting corners...

Look, you went and made me break my promise. Where did you get your numbers? Because they conflict with mine. Speed of the planes was reported as roughly 440 mph for one plane and about 540 mph for the other, each plane actually had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, and the planes weighed closer to 200,000 pounds each. Not major differences but I'm just wondering where your numbers came from. The study that was done way back in the day stated that a 707 (the weight used in the study was higher than the weight of the 2 planes used on 9-11) hitting one of the buildings at 600 mph (again higher than the speed in the 9-11 attacks) wouldn't be able to collapse the towers. But again, that was a study, clearly we know more about this subject now that we did back then.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: Vic

The Force is weak in this one.

Sorry, this is actual science here, not politics or religion. It's not fuzzy, there are precise numbers involved here. Not only that, but going from my statement that no building in the world could survive such an impact, and that it will never be cost effective to do so with modern materials, and twisting that to mean that I said that contractors don't cut corners... just makes you look like an asshole.

Look, I enjoy discussing various subjects with people and can admittedly get worked up, but try to stay objective, lose the insults and trash talk please.

 

[DrPizza]

Part of me wants to laugh... the other part of me is deeply saddened by how our education system fails in teaching simple science concepts.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: Vic
No, because you're still completely wrong.
There was more than 11,000 gallons of kerosene on EACH plane, kerosene has a heating value of 18,500 BTUs/lb, a gallon of kerosene weighs almost 7 lbs., meaning that the total heat output of the burning kerosene of each plane in each building was approaching 1,424,500,000 BTUs (yes, 1.4 Billion BTUs). Or, if you prefer 1,502,177,985,000 joules (read: 417,271,663 kilowatt-hours, or 417 gigawatts).
Next, a loaded 757 weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. and they each struck the WTCs at approximately 625 mph. F=ma. You do the fsckin' math.

It's a miracle of and testament to modern structural engineering that the buildings didn't collapse on impact, and yet we have conspiracy theory idiots spouting nonsense about planted explosives and builders cutting corners...

Look, you went and made me break my promise. Where did you get your numbers? Because they conflict with mine. Speed of the planes was reported as roughly 440 mph for one plane and about 540 mph for the other, each plane actually had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, and the planes weighed closer to 200,000 pounds each. Not major differences but I'm just wondering where your numbers came from. The study that was done way back in the day stated that a 707 (the weight used in the study was higher than the weight of the 2 planes used on 9-11) hitting one of the buildings at 600 mph (again higher than the speed in the 9-11 attacks) wouldn't be able to collapse the towers. But again, that was a study, clearly we know more about this subject now that we did back then.

They also figured it would be empty on fuel, and flying much slower, like a landing approach in bad weather if it couldn't get re-routed. Below 10,000 ft, pilots must be below 250kts.
Plus, it was pre-computer modeling.

 

[Arcex]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: Vic
No, because you're still completely wrong.
There was more than 11,000 gallons of kerosene on EACH plane, kerosene has a heating value of 18,500 BTUs/lb, a gallon of kerosene weighs almost 7 lbs., meaning that the total heat output of the burning kerosene of each plane in each building was approaching 1,424,500,000 BTUs (yes, 1.4 Billion BTUs). Or, if you prefer 1,502,177,985,000 joules (read: 417,271,663 kilowatt-hours, or 417 gigawatts).
Next, a loaded 757 weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. and they each struck the WTCs at approximately 625 mph. F=ma. You do the fsckin' math.

It's a miracle of and testament to modern structural engineering that the buildings didn't collapse on impact, and yet we have conspiracy theory idiots spouting nonsense about planted explosives and builders cutting corners...

Look, you went and made me break my promise. Where did you get your numbers? Because they conflict with mine. Speed of the planes was reported as roughly 440 mph for one plane and about 540 mph for the other, each plane actually had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, and the planes weighed closer to 200,000 pounds each. Not major differences but I'm just wondering where your numbers came from. The study that was done way back in the day stated that a 707 (the weight used in the study was higher than the weight of the 2 planes used on 9-11) hitting one of the buildings at 600 mph (again higher than the speed in the 9-11 attacks) wouldn't be able to collapse the towers. But again, that was a study, clearly we know more about this subject now that we did back then.

They also figured it would be empty on fuel, and flying much slower, like a landing approach in bad weather if it couldn't get re-routed. Below 10,000 ft, pilots must be below 250kts.
Plus, it was pre-computer modeling.

There's some confusion about that actually, one site I found said what you said, that it was an estimate for a landing aproach that got lost in fog as an example, but another site said an impact from a plane at 600 mph. But either way you're right, that was all based on numbers, not actual models or real-world evidence. My point remains that there is no guarantee that something extra wasn't needed to help the towers collapse, be it outside interference (by the terrorists, not the frickin government), or structural problems. Which, by the way, its not like they never had problems with the towers before 9-11. They did have a fire in one of them way back in the day which required a lot of work updating the buildings fire suppresion systems.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: Vic
No, because you're still completely wrong.
There was more than 11,000 gallons of kerosene on EACH plane, kerosene has a heating value of 18,500 BTUs/lb, a gallon of kerosene weighs almost 7 lbs., meaning that the total heat output of the burning kerosene of each plane in each building was approaching 1,424,500,000 BTUs (yes, 1.4 Billion BTUs). Or, if you prefer 1,502,177,985,000 joules (read: 417,271,663 kilowatt-hours, or 417 gigawatts).
Next, a loaded 767 weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. and they each struck the WTCs at approximately 625 mph. F=ma. You do the fsckin' math.

It's a miracle of and testament to modern structural engineering that the buildings didn't collapse on impact, and yet we have conspiracy theory idiots spouting nonsense about planted explosives and builders cutting corners...

Look, you went and made me break my promise. Where did you get your numbers? Because they conflict with mine. Speed of the planes was reported as roughly 440 mph for one plane and about 540 mph for the other, each plane actually had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, and the planes weighed closer to 200,000 pounds each. Not major differences but I'm just wondering where your numbers came from. The study that was done way back in the day stated that a 707 (the weight used in the study was higher than the weight of the 2 planes used on 9-11) hitting one of the buildings at 600 mph (again higher than the speed in the 9-11 attacks) wouldn't be able to collapse the towers. But again, that was a study, clearly we know more about this subject now that we did back then.

A Boeing 767-200 weighs ~180,000 lbs. completely empty and has a crusing speed of 530 mph (0.80 mach). Each plane had a full load of fuel for transcontinental flight (which is just over 11,000 gallons) and hit the buildings after a sustained full power dive of 10,000 feet/minute from ~28,000 feet (you don't want to even know how f*ed up an experience for the passengers that would have been).
Text
Text
Text
Text


Comparing this to an outdated test with a much smaller 707 is just ridiculous.
And if you don't like the personal attacks, then stop making stupid arguments, particularly straw men where you intentionally mischaracterize my arguments into something completely different from what I actually said.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Arcex
There's some confusion about that actually, one site I found said what you said, that it was an estimate for a landing aproach that got lost in fog as an example, but another site said an impact from a plane at 600 mph. But either way you're right, that was all based on numbers, not actual models or real-world evidence. My point remains that there is no guarantee that something extra wasn't needed to help the towers collapse, be it outside interference (by the terrorists, not the frickin government), or structural problems. Which, by the way, its not like they never had problems with the towers before 9-11. They did have a fire in one of them way back in the day which required a lot of work updating the buildings fire suppresion systems.

So far, I haven't heard much about the 600mph calculation. And this includes many interviews with the original designers, engineers and what not.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Arcex
I have mixed opinions about this. One the one hand, yes, fire can't melt steel.

Yup, fire can't melt steel. Before high explosives, steel couldn't be cast or shaped in any way. Blacksmiths used to sit idly waiting for the day when they could perform their craft with explosives. And cast iron? Forget about that myth. It's really "blast iron".

lol, I'm going to go home and use my "blast iron" pan tonight.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Part of me wants to laugh... the other part of me is deeply saddened by how our education system fails in teaching simple science concepts.

I'm not so sure that it's a failure in our education system so much as as refusal to accept basic science in favor of politically-charged conspiracy theories.
So you have people arguing on the internet that Katrina was caused by government weather machines. Or that the WTCs couldn't have fallen without the help of planted explosives. Or (and this was argued in P&N recently) that McD's hot coffee lawsuit was the result of a vast corporate conspiracy to screw their customers because McD's discovered that coffee sales increased when they sold it hot (can you believe it?).

People, I have found, have a desperate psychological need for monsters in order to make sense of senseless tragedies.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Arcex
I have mixed opinions about this. One the one hand, yes, fire can't melt steel.

Yup, fire can't melt steel. Before high explosives, steel couldn't be cast or shaped in any way. Blacksmiths used to sit idly waiting for the day when they could perform their craft with explosives. And cast iron? Forget about that myth. It's really "blast iron".

:laugh:MAO

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Ok, fine. Let me be more specific, the temperatures present in the World Trade Center buildings after the planes hit them would likely (yes, I said likely) not have been high enough to render the steel weak enough to cause a complete collapse of the buildings after so short (relatively speaking) a time based on the stated durability and specs of the buildings. It is also highly likely that the buildings simply were not as strong as the manufacturers claimed, there are a million ways to cut corners on a construction project of that magnitude.

Happy?

Next, I merely stated a possible theory that in addition to crashing the planes into the buildings the terrorists, THE TERRORISTS, also snuck explosives in to HELP bring the towers down. That's what I said in my first post and here it is repeated.

Last, I don't need to know every thing about Bush and every thought that has crossed his synapses to form my own opinion of him based on my observations of his politics, his history, and his statements.

404-Possible theory not found.

How did the terrorists know which floor to place the explosives? There were 110 stories in each of the WTC buildings. Figure about 1/3 of that in the upper section of each building you'd have to get every floor wired...you'd think someone would have noticed a few tons of explosives being moved into the buildings in the days leading up to the attacks.

Just give it up. Vic is right and you are completely wrong.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Arcex

Originally posted by: Vic
No, because you're still completely wrong.
There was more than 11,000 gallons of kerosene on EACH plane, kerosene has a heating value of 18,500 BTUs/lb, a gallon of kerosene weighs almost 7 lbs., meaning that the total heat output of the burning kerosene of each plane in each building was approaching 1,424,500,000 BTUs (yes, 1.4 Billion BTUs). Or, if you prefer 1,502,177,985,000 joules (read: 417,271,663 kilowatt-hours, or 417 gigawatts).
Next, a loaded 757 weighs approximately 220,000 lbs. and they each struck the WTCs at approximately 625 mph. F=ma. You do the fsckin' math.

It's a miracle of and testament to modern structural engineering that the buildings didn't collapse on impact, and yet we have conspiracy theory idiots spouting nonsense about planted explosives and builders cutting corners...

Look, you went and made me break my promise. Where did you get your numbers? Because they conflict with mine. Speed of the planes was reported as roughly 440 mph for one plane and about 540 mph for the other, each plane actually had about 10,000 gallons of fuel, and the planes weighed closer to 200,000 pounds each. Not major differences but I'm just wondering where your numbers came from. The study that was done way back in the day stated that a 707 (the weight used in the study was higher than the weight of the 2 planes used on 9-11) hitting one of the buildings at 600 mph (again higher than the speed in the 9-11 attacks) wouldn't be able to collapse the towers. But again, that was a study, clearly we know more about this subject now that we did back then.

They also figured it would be empty on fuel, and flying much slower, like a landing approach in bad weather if it couldn't get re-routed. Below 10,000 ft, pilots must be below 250kts.
Plus, it was pre-computer modeling.

There's some confusion about that actually, one site I found said what you said, that it was an estimate for a landing aproach that got lost in fog as an example, but another site said an impact from a plane at 600 mph. But either way you're right, that was all based on numbers, not actual models or real-world evidence. My point remains that there is no guarantee that something extra wasn't needed to help the towers collapse, be it outside interference (by the terrorists, not the frickin government), or structural problems. Which, by the way, its not like they never had problems with the towers before 9-11. They did have a fire in one of them way back in the day which required a lot of work updating the buildings fire suppresion systems.

It's possible I got the last box of Cheerios because there was simply one box left when I got to the supermarket. It's also possible that I engineered a massive conspiracy by paying off the CEO of Safeway, who then pulled some strings for me with the local manager, who then hid the last box of Cheerios until I arrived and coordinated several employees to run interference for me with other customers while I made a mad dash for the cereal boxes.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: randumb

It's possible I got the last box of Cheerios because there was simply one box left when I got to the supermarket. It's also possible that I engineered a massive conspiracy by paying off the CEO of Safeway, who then pulled some strings for me with the local manager, who then hid the last box of Cheerios until I arrived and coordinated several employees to run interference for me with other customers while I made a mad dash for the cereal boxes.

How do you know the cops didn't get there first? :laugh:

 

[glenn beck]

remember the gas tanker that crashed and caught on fire on the San Francisco freeway and collapsed the bridges


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/arti.../04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL


Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay's MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.