enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 1 of 2 (19 items)   1 2 Next >
Experts Say Twin Towers Were Designed To Handle Impacts.
by ctcadguy
-4 Reply

THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767, SO WHY DIDN'T IT? Fact.

The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour.

Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers. Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet. The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.

The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)).

The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet).

So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7).

Look mom, no explosives needed. Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.

Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers.

In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one).

Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.

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 more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing. And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive.

So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster.

In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)2/32.174 = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)2/32.174 = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that at cruise speed, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767.

That is, 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 has been estimated to be 470 mph = 689 ft/s.

The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 has been estimated to be 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 force (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 force (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.

Note that the speed of a projectile determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area.

The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage.

Common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged.

Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and the damage localized. This effect is illustrated in the above graphic from the simulation of the crash of a Boeing 747 (maximum takeoff weight 875,000 lb, unloaded weight 670,200 lb, fuel capacity 57,285 gallons) with a steel framed building.

We are told that the "hijackers" wanted to cause maximum death and destruction, then why didn't they hijack Boeing 747s?

Boeing 747s weigh more than twice as much, they can carry more than twice the fuel and travel faster than the Boeing 767.

Consequently, Boeing 747s would have caused much more death and destruction than the 767s. Also, why did the hijackers choose to hijack aircraft leaving Boston, when they could have just as easily 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.

Of course, as is usual, all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as the aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes. Not only that, the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly intercept them before they reached their target (and would have assuredly shoot down the second 767, after seeing what happened to the first).

It is often claimed that the WTC was designed only to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at one of the nearby airports, and that since such aircraft would be low on fuel, only small jet fuel fires were envisaged.

However, this is an obvious lie. Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are potentially fully laden with fuel.

Since the WTC towers were designed to handle extreme wind loading (140 mph hurricane force winds) they would survive the impact of a Boeing 707 (even one that was traveling at full speed) without adding any extra features to the design (above those already necessary to handle the wind loading).

All that the designers would have to consider, is effect of a jet fuel fire from a fully fueled jet that crashed into one of the towers shortly after taking off from one of the local airports.

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 much larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

Maybe the experts meant to say...
by Nstig8r
Explosive-ladened Ryder trucks.
and yet, they fell following being hit by
by jpfc

an airliner.

jp

Go figure

Re: and yet, they fell following being hit by
by ctcadguy
WTC 7 did not - How do you explain that?
Massive damage from the debris from the
by jpfc

adjacent towers, and an internal, disiel fueled fire which burned for six hours.

JP

hope that helps.

Re: Experts Say Twin Towers Were Designed To Handle Impacts.
by J.MADISON
767 Aircraft did NOT EXIST when the buildings were designed.So how is it that you missed this little fact when you posted your rant?
LIAR run liar run its apples and oranges
by lordjesus

so you started a new post instead of defending you original lie.

let me point out that phd whats his name is comparing the wrong model boeing 707 against the boeing 767. the model that the wtc was designed to withstand a hit from was the 707-020. the first boeing 707 model. the 707-020 weighed 222,000 lbs full and 103,145 lbs empty. the design of the wtc started in 1958 and was completed in early 1963. the boeing phd whats his name is using as the basis of his incorrect comparison is the 707-320B which didn't start production untill late 1963 early 1964. so the weights used are dead wrong. the statement that the wtc was in essence designed a hit from a 767 is dead wrong.

further phd whats his name uses a lot of estimated speeds that do not stand up to reality. both planes were speed up prior to impact by the al qaeda pilots inorder to maximize the kinetic energy transfer. so the kinetic energy was much greater than phd whats his name indicates.

perhaps astaneh-asl is just another muslim that can not confront the true evil of muhammed's teachings and the evil of islam.

Re: LIAR run liar run its apples and oranges
by oicuateonetwo
wow, cuntguy, the lord is calling you a liar,,you better run......and hide.....
Re: LIAR run liar run its apples and oranges
by ctcadguy

Hey Jesus Freak who calls me a liar:

Show me the wreckage of an airliner in these pictures of the Pentagon crash

<link>

Where are the dead bodies, seats, engines, anything - please show me.

How come the administration has released no video of the crash other than a 15 second blur.

Did you know video from a gas station, hotel and traffic cam were confiscated minutes after this crash.

Lawsuits are pending using the freedom of information act to release these confiscated videos but the administration is fighting it. Why?

Bet you did not know this did you?

Why don't you view the squibs that show prematures going off - maybe you will believe your own eyes.

Just google 911 squibs.

Silly Deniers and their silly emotional attachment to the brainwashering that their government is a source of nothing but good.

Grow the fuck up already and start listening to the technical geeks.

Bush apologists are entitled to thier own opinions, not to their own physics.

Re: LIAR run liar run its apples and oranges
by teigan
Aren't you late for your basket weaving class. You already missed your therapy session.
Re: LIAR run liar run its apples and oranges
by ctcadguy
LordJesus writes: so you started a new post instead of defending you original lie.

let me point out that phd whats his name is comparing the wrong model boeing 707 against the boeing 767. the model that the wtc was designed to withstand a hit from was the 707-020. the first boeing 707 model. the 707-020 weighed 222,000 lbs full and 103,145 lbs empty. the design of the wtc started in 1958 and was completed in early 1963. the boeing phd whats his name is using as the basis of his incorrect comparison is the 707-320B which didn't start production untill late 1963 early 1964. so the weights used are dead wrong. the statement that the wtc was in essence designed a hit from a 767 is dead wrong.

further phd whats his name uses a lot of estimated speeds that do not stand up to reality. both planes were speed up prior to impact by the al qaeda pilots inorder to maximize the kinetic energy transfer. so the kinetic energy was much greater than phd whats his name indicates.

perhaps astaneh-asl is just another muslim that can not confront the true evil of muhammed's teachings and the evil of islam.

Let me point out that you are the liar!

The 707-320 was is in fact the largest airliner flying in 1966 when the design of the towers was just being put on pape.

Boeing soon introduced the long-range 707-320 Intercontinental that in May 1959 flew 5,382 miles nonstop from Seattle to Rome in 11 hours and 6 minutes. A number of variants were developed for special use, including shorter-bodied airplanes and the 720 series (originally called the 707-020), which was lighter and faster and had better runway performance than the basic 707-120.

Link:

<link>

Guess Lord Jesus is a Liar - How disappointing!

Re: LIAR run liar run its apples and oranges
by ctcadguy

Good Heavens, I am so glad you did not call me a liar to my face as I would have put a fist thru Lordjesus's face.

Bet I would go to hell for that - Nah!

Anyone with a handle LordJesus obviously thinks way to highly of himself!

Still waiting for you to answer my questions that I listed in my other post?

It must really piss off the Bush apologists that most people know 911 is not what it seems.

According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.

Re: Experts Say Twin Towers Were Designed To Handle Impacts.
by ctcadguy
Re: Experts Say Twin Towers Were Designed To Handle Impacts.
by
J.MADISON
07/14/2008, 2:26 PM #
Favorites Reply 767 Aircraft did NOT EXIST when the buildings were designed.So how is it that you missed this little fact when you posted your rant? I know this. Pay attention - The Towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by 707's, not 767's. The comparison between the 767 and the 707-320 as far as kinectic energy is concerned is detailed here to show that the 767 that hit the tower actually imparts less kinectic energy than the 707 for which the Towers were designed for. It has to with fuel loading and speed as well as weight. The weight of the 767 is more but the speed is less. The 767 was the larger aircraft that hit the tower on 911. Now do you understand?
Yo...think shelf brackets
by Boca

dumbass.

The floors were supported by clips. Some on the perimeter columns, some on the interior columns. They buckled due to heat.

Nothing burned down jerk. It fell down. Beginning with one floor falling on the one below, two falling on the next one, and so forth. The collapse took less than 10 seconds....straight fucking down.

Get over it.

You Don't Have A Clue
by PaulB
what you're talking about!
Page 1 of 2 (19 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML