Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2017, 10:40 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 10:20 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 10:15 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Construction of the towers began in the mid 1960s and the plans were drawn up in the early 1960s. There was a small concern about planes hitting the towers since they're so tall and nothing had been built that tall before.

However what you neglect to consider, no one speculated that a pilot would fly into the towers at full throttle on purpose. They considered that a pilot going off course might wing the buildings but they assumed a pilot would actually try to avoid it.


No, you won't. It stays here and if you start a new thread on this topic it will be merged with this thread and you'll face a consequence.

Mama this thread is off topic, it was never meant to facilitate a debate nor was it meant to be about any specific conspiracy theory.

Also the planes were only going cruise speed.

Also.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

No they weren't going at cruise speed. Also all planes carry more fuel than they think they need for a flight. Since 1/3 is burned off on take off and again on landing. This is for safety in case they have to circle the airport or are diverted due to a last minute emergency or weather. There was a flight from the east coast that realized it's landing gear wasn't functioning properly and had to fly for 3 additional hours to burn off enough to fuel before attempting to land at LAX -- why? They didn't want to attempt a landing with a more fuel than was needed to land.

You're an idiot cherry picking...They were far more concerned with natural disasters. Hurricanes and even earthquakes.

I don't care that this thread has gone off topic, it's evolved to what it is and all this shit is staying in this thread.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
25-01-2017, 10:46 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 10:29 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  To be perfectly honest I do kind of like a good debate, its like sharpening your mind.

When the evidence shows that you're wrong, you're fucking wrong and saying you're right doesn't change it.

Not just petulantly saying that you won -- That's the Petulant Puppet President's idea of winning, keep repeating falsehoods and saying you're right when evidence proves otherwise.

I used to think you were somewhat better than that. Now, after reading this shit show, I'm not so certain.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
25-01-2017, 10:48 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 11:01 AM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 10:40 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 10:20 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Mama this thread is off topic, it was never meant to facilitate a debate nor was it meant to be about any specific conspiracy theory.

Also the planes were only going cruise speed.

Also.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

No they weren't going at cruise speed. Also all planes carry more fuel than they think they need for a flight. Since 1/3 is burned off on take off and again on landing. This is for safety in case they have to circle the airport or are diverted due to a last minute emergency or weather. There was a flight from the east coast that realized it's landing gear wasn't functioning properly and had to fly for 3 additional hours to burn off enough to fuel before attempting to land at LAX -- why? They didn't want to attempt a landing with a more fuel than was needed to land.

You're an idiot cherry picking...They were far more concerned with natural disasters. Hurricanes and even earthquakes.

I don't care that this thread has gone off topic, it's evolved to what it is and all this shit is staying in this thread.

approximately 590 mph
At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots) and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board.

590 mph is only 60 mph above the cruise speed of 530, essentially cruise speed.





(25-01-2017 10:46 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  When the evidence shows that you're wrong, you're fucking wrong and saying you're right doesn't change it.

Not just petulantly saying that you won -- That's the Petulant Puppet President's idea of winning, keep repeating falsehoods and saying you're right when evidence proves otherwise.

I used to think you were somewhat better than that. Now, after reading this shit show, I'm not so certain.

Its not just me saying I'm right, I've corrected the errors of many people while I've been here. So many mistakes in fact that I've actually lost count.

I think there was around 11.

Including Deesse's math, whiskey's aluminum oxide and slag fuck up (both are bi products of thermite), peebothuhul's 'typos', and chas and Rocket whom I forget what their errors exactly were.

Exactly how fast did you think the cruise speed was for a jetliner mama? and how fast did you think they were going?

(25-01-2017 10:35 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

I must admit, outside of a James Bond novel, I've always wondered exactly 'How' a super international conspiracy was supposed to work. Consider

That you are the one that keeps bringing up different context with almost every seeming post might be why the thread rambles so?

I do apologize if I'm the one who brings it up, but I do not focus on it, it is merely run off from my repository of knowledge (which may or may not be correct) that I have acquired. They are essentially 'afterthoughts' however you will notice that I do not pursue them because I choose to focus on the twin towers.

As for how super international conspiracies work. Well when two people love each other very much... joking. No but really money talks a lot more than you might think. I have no aspirations of for wealth so the emotion people call greed often confuses me. It does not mean I am not envious, but money bears no meaning to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 11:03 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

Okay, just to point out something but.

You do realise the impact speed you're quoting is higher than the vehicle's at altitude cruising speed, right?

As in, at 39.000 feet that machine hustles along at Mach 0.8 give or take.

You're writing off a damn fast speed at virtually ground level with, I must add, a full fuel load, cargo, passengers et.al?

Consider

You keep trivializing the wrong things C_W. No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
25-01-2017, 11:10 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:03 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Okay, just to point out something but.

You do realise the impact speed you're quoting is higher than the vehicle's at altitude cruising speed, right?

As in, at 39.000 feet that machine hustles along at Mach 0.8 give or take.

You're writing off a damn fast speed at virtually ground level with, I must add, a full fuel load, cargo, passengers et.al?

Consider

You keep trivializing the wrong things C_W. No

I discount it because it was already designed to withstand a 707 travelling at 600 mph.

Also the plane did not have 60 tons of fuel peebothuhul. They only had 33.3 tons of fuel. That is another error for you my friend Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 11:14 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
Hey you knobsack, usual top speed for a 767 at sea level is 403 mph (581mph at 30000 ft). To say that going 590 mph at a mere 1300 ft is 'essentially cruise speed' as though its not going particularly faster than normal is completely dishonest.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 11:14 AM)ukatheist Wrote:  Hey you knobsack, usual top speed for a 767 at sea level is 403 mph (581mph at 30000 ft). To say that going 590 mph at a mere 1300 ft is 'essentially cruise speed' as though its not going particularly faster than normal is completely dishonest.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Correction. The top speed for a 767 at sea level is 0 mph, it would be inert.

The cruise speed of a 767 is 530, 60 miles over that is equivalent of us going 70 mph in a car to 78 mph. an increase of speed by only 11%. Which as has been stated before the tests conducted for the WTC was for speeds going 600 mph.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 11:27 AM
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 10:20 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Also the planes were only going cruise speed.

Only? Facepalm

Quote:Also.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a

No tests were carried out - only calculations.
You keep making incorrect claims that are easily fact-checked.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
25-01-2017, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 11:32 AM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
At work.

Consider

The buildings were designed to withstand a plane travelling at its cruising altitude speed?

Citation please.

Also, your speed assertions etc aren't a simple matter of direct scaling comparisons.

Altitude air density etc are all going to make things different. To name a few.

Please, be less inclined as to 'Scoring points' as opposed to conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2017, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2017 11:32 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Questioning The Intangible Versus Questioning the Tangible
(25-01-2017 10:20 AM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(25-01-2017 10:15 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Construction of the towers began in the mid 1960s and the plans were drawn up in the early 1960s. There was a small concern about planes hitting the towers since they're so tall and nothing had been built that tall before.

However what you neglect to consider, no one speculated that a pilot would fly into the towers at full throttle on purpose. They considered that a pilot going off course might wing the buildings but they assumed a pilot would actually try to avoid it.


No, you won't. It stays here and if you start a new thread on this topic it will be merged with this thread and you'll face a consequence.

Mama this thread is off topic, it was never meant to facilitate a debate nor was it meant to be about any specific conspiracy theory.

Also the planes were only going cruise speed.

Also.

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.
(25-01-2017 10:16 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  Never paid attention to this thread until now and holy shit... there are brain cells I will never get back.

Yeah jdog I've had to put up with quite a lot in here I to miss the brain cells I had at the start of this.

Except they didn't calculate the impact of a 707 at 600mph. They presumed that any aircraft hitting the tower would be flying slowly (not even cruise speed) at that altitude, perhaps lost in fog, low on fuel and seeking to land at one of the two nearby airports. There is no other scenario in which planes fully loaded with fuel would be recently taken-off and headed at full throttle into the towers.

Secondly, the calculations for the impact of the 707s did not take into account-- as no one, prior to the 1975 fires could-- how intense a structure fire could be on a building of that size. They simply calculated whether or not the impact would bring down the towers.

The impact did *not* bring down the towers. So they were right... and your point is irrelevant to the discussion here.

The continuing fire from internal flammable materials, in addition to the fuel's initially very intense burn, is what did the job. The damage from the impact of a 767 at 500+ mph was intense enough to blow clean through the building, shredding entire stairwells, water pipelines, and pretty much everything else it met, and to explode out the far side of the building.

[Image: 9-11-attacks-twin-towers.png]

In the case of Building 7, such internal fires alone were enough to bring down the smaller skyscraper, though impact from falling debris and internal diesel fuel tanks did contribute a little to the collapse.

While the bomb in 1993 did quite a bit of structural damage to the concrete floors-- on the bottom floors-- it was not even close in terms of damage done to the structure, nor was it accompanied by a fire of remotely similar power. And even then, major and very rapid work had to be done because of the damage to the retaining walls that held back the river water, as well as a number of structural members. The '93 bombers failed because their goal was to try to damage vertical structural columns in order to get one tower to topple into the other, bringing both down. That, as we have been saying, was not possible-- even the aircraft impact did not damage the vertical structural members to that point, which is why the collapse we see was the "pancaking" of floors breaking away from the vertical supports and falling onto the ones below, and triggering collapse because the vertical columns buckled once bereft of their lateral support.

You are comparing apples and oranges, in several ways.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: