FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC South Tower - Wrong Tower Fell First
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6516

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:14 pm    Post subject: WTC South Tower - Wrong Tower Fell First Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with general evidence about the attack
on the World Trade Center South Tower.


Evidence not relating to any specific building can be posted
to the WTC Other Issues topic.

-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic.


Last edited by Fintan on Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6516

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:26 pm    Post subject: The Wrong Tower Fell First Reply with quote

The Wrong Tower Fell First

One of the strongest arguments to discount the official theory that fires
caused the collapse of the towers is that the wrong tower fell first. The
South Tower fell before the North --even though it had been hit later.

And the Tower that fell was also the one least likely to have been affected
by fire, because --as the massive fireball shows-- most of the fuel on the
plane that hit the tower burst out into open air on the other corner of
the tower. That's what made the huge fireball.

I first made these points seven days after the event, in the first of our
'WagTheWTC' articles. An excerpt is repoduced below.

The issue does not features much on 9/11 sites, which is a pity, because
I think it's an issue the average person can relate to. After all, they all
saw that fireball.

Theres another point I'd like to make, which I have mentioned when
interviewed on this. The banked approach was a very bad idea if a
real pilot had been directing the plane. It increased the chances of
missing the tower altogether. Straight and level flight would be best.

However an offcentered strike on the tower --with a banked approach--
was vital if you wanted to have a spectacular visual fireball. Hitting the
tower straight on would have dumped most of the fuel inside --where
oxygen was in limited supply.

And if a computer was handling the approach --not a pilot-- then such a
banked approach would be easy.

So the banked angle into the South Tower is evidence that whoever
carried out the hit used computer-controlled flight for pyrotechnic effect.

That's three issues in all:

1: Wrong tower fell first.
2: South tower got little jet fuel.
3: Strike was guided for pyrotechnics.

Those three points still look good --even after five years.

Bam. Bam. Bam. Wink

Quote:
Excerpt From:
THE SPLIT-SECOND ERROR

by Fintan Dunne, Research Kathy McMahon - 18 September 2001


FIGURE 1 & FIGURE 2

Ed Note: The flight line in our early graphics overstate the bank angles.
The North Tower approach was straight on, and the South Tower
approach was not quite as acute.


THE ARC OF FAILURE

Earlier, the North Tower impact site had been right in the center of the tower (2 right). The entire fuel load and flotsam was dumped deep inside and remained in the building -where it exploded (8 & 9).

But now as Flight 175 disappeared inside the South Tower, it burst like a paper bag full of water. The thousands of pounds of jet fuel were liberated to follow a path dictated by the momentum of what had once been an aircraft.

A wash of jet fuel and airplane parts tore through the interior of the building at hundreds of miles an hour; sweeping everything before it and just starting to ignite as it rushed along. But it didn't take the same course as had aircraft debris inside the North Tower, eighteen minutes before. By contrast, the majority of the fuel and debris from the second plane smashed out of the building and exploded OUTSIDE in the open air over the street (9)(fig 2).

The plane's approach was an arc of a great circle -one that had tightened even further with that final twitch on the controls. Imagine again a paper bag of water spun on the end of a string. If the paper bag bursts, the water inside will head off at a tangent to the original arc.
In the same fashion, the fuel now tried to take a course to the right of the original flight path. The aircraft had impacted near the corner of the building. Within fractions of a second the already igniting fuel had raced diagonally across the corner to burst out into the open air again, on the adjacent side of the Second Tower. Photos even show a smoking engine which shot out as it had not even been slowed by the building interior (10).

This air explosion provided a stunning pyrotechnic spectacle witnessed by countless millions, but it was an operational disaster. For it left the thorny question of explaining how the South Tower -which took less than half the fuel load of its North Tower twin -was the first of the two to collapse.(See Fig 1&2)

THE WRONG TOWER FELL FIRST

Even before the second plane hit the South Tower, its northern counterpart was already burning strongly, with a great plume of dense black toxic fumes drifting over a stunned Manhattan. Flight 11 had rocketed deep inside the building before the fuel ignited. On some floors the fire burned across the entire width of the building. By 9:45 a.m. the North Tower was ablaze not just on the floors that took the impact, but all the way to the top of the building (10).

The towers sprinkler fire extinguisher system were bolstered by automatic hermetrically sealing doors on every floor to prevent the spread of fire. But office workers still found themselves stumbling down sometimes darkened and smoke-filled fire escape stairs.

The giant steel beams used to build the towers had been cast in Japan -no American steel milll could roll out the massive 'I' beams. The explanation accepted by the mainstream media pundits for the collapse of both towers is that these beams softened like warm toffee in the intensity of the fires.

If that were the case, then the North Tower was the obvious candidate to be the first to collapse. Not only did it have almost a twenty minute head start on the South Tower conflagration, but the fire extended to the whole area of many floors. The South Tower fire was smaller and more confined, so that by 10:30 a.m. there was an obvious difference visible to those in the streets below and the hypnotized TV cameras now trained on the incredible sight.

http://www.breakfornews.com/wag/the_split_second_error.htm

Photo 8 & Photo 9



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2871
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a different take on the anglular strike on the South tower.

Presuming, (as I often do) that I know WTC 7 was the command center for these attacks and demolitions, then it makes the most sense to not hit the South Tower head-on, as the ejecta that came out the North side during the hit may have possibly reached WTC 7, where Rudy's boys sat getting ready for the demolitions of the 2 towers.



Note that the engine and landing gear landed safely several blocks to the East of WTC 7, because of the angular trajectory of the alleged Flight 175 strike.

The resulting fireball, I believe, was just a bonus factor result of this pre-planned trajectory.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you both (Fintan and Rumpl4skn) make good points. However, you tie some of those points together, no doubt to make sense of them, when those points might or might not belong together in the way you suggest. I'm not sure I'm explaining this well, but what I'm getting at is I'd like to separate these points, so we can consider them independently and in various combinations:

  • Whereas the first plane hit the North tower (WTC 1) relatively straight-on, the second plane hit the South tower (WTC 2) relatively indirectly, and in such a way that it was apparently necessary to bank the plane at a relatively sharp angle, just before hitting the tower, in order to avoid missing the tower altogether.

    This indirect approach would seem to have had several consequences:

    • The damage to the South tower (WTC 2) from the second plane crash and resulting fires was more asymmetrical than the damage to the North tower (WTC 1) from the first plane crash and resulting fires, and more asymmetrical than it would have been were the South tower (WTC 2) hit straight-on.

    • A larger proportion of fuel and airplane/building debris was ejected from the South tower (WTC 2) during the second plane crash than was ejected from the North tower (WTC 1) during the first plane crash, or than would have been ejected from the South tower (WTC 2) were it hit straight-on.

    • The fireball resulting from the plane crash at the South tower (WTC 2) was more spectacular than the fireball resulting from the plane crash at the North tower (WTC 1), and more spectacular than it would have been were the South tower (WTC 2) hit straight-on.

    • The airplane/building debris ejected from the South tower (WTC 2) during the second plane crash was less likely to strike or damage WTC 7 than it would have been were the South tower (WTC 2) hit straight-on.

    • The indirect approach with the last-minute correction/banking was more challenging for the pilot than a straight-on approach would have been.

      • If the pilot was human (whether on-board, piloting by remote control, or some combination), the indirect approach with the last-minute correction/banking would seem to have been more difficult and more risky -- that is, more prone to failure (missing the target).
      • If the pilot was a computer or machine of some sort (whether on-board, piloting by remote control, or some combination), the indirect approach with the last-minute correction/banking would have presented a greater technical challenge for the auto-piloting system. Specifically, it would not have been enough to just program the system to pilot the plane directly to a target. At least least two points (one: the point the plane reached just before the correction; two: the building) would have been needed, including the capability of a sudden correction; alternatively, a more detailed path, including the last-minute correction/banking, might have been specified.
      • Either way -- though especially if the pilot(s) were human -- it's conceivable that the indirect approach and last-minute correction/banking was not planned that way, but resulted from circumstance and necessity. In other words, as the plane got within sight (or sight-range) of the WTC, it became apparent to the human pilot or remote-control human pilot(s) that the approach was not as straight-on as hoped. Then, either the plane was deliberately aimed slightly to the right of WTC 2, so that a last-minute correction could achieve a more-direct (more-nearly-straight-on) hit than would otherwise be possible at this stage, or the plane was negligently aimed slightly to the right of WTC 2, and the last-minute correction/banking was done out of sheer necessity, to avoid missing the towers.


(I'll address the "wrong tower fell first" point separately, in my next post. Perhaps the foregoing belongs in a different topic? I'm not sure.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:24 am    Post subject: Re: The Wrong Tower Fell First Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
The Wrong Tower Fell First

One of the strongest arguments to discount the official theory that fires
caused the collapse of the towers is that the wrong tower fell first. The
South Tower fell before the North --even though it had been hit later.

And the Tower that fell was also the one least likely to have been affected
by fire, because --as the massive fireball shows-- most of the fuel on the
plane that hit the tower burst out into open air on the other corner of
the tower. That's what made the huge fireball.

I first made these points seven days after the event, in the first of our
'WagTheWTC' articles. An excerpt is repoduced below.

The issue does not features much on 9/11 sites, which is a pity, because
I think it's an issue the average person can relate to. After all, they all
saw that fireball.


I agree that this is a compelling argument. However, there are counter-arguments, and the matter is not as simple as it might initially seem. Rather than plagiarize Mike Williams, I'll just quote his analysis in full, below. (I downloaded it on Aug. 3, 2006. He updates his site somewhat frequently, so what follows might not be the latest version.) I'm not claiming he's right, just adding his points (well, more like the points he found and quoted) to the discussion. All bold emphasis is mine:

Quote:

The story...

If the WTC towers tell due to fire, then why did Two WTC fall in around half the time of One WTC? It doesnt make sense.

Our take...

Fireproofing has been suggested as one factor.

Quote:
...some experts say that fireproofing was too thin as well. Speaking at the NIST hearing, Professor James Quintiere of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland noted that the collapse times of the Twin Towers were proportional to the thickness of the fireproofing.

Specifically, One WTC, which had 1 1/2 inch fireproofing, fell in 104 minutes, while Two WTC, which had 3/4 inch fireproofing, crumbled in only 56 minutes. "The insulation used [was] too little, according to our calculations," he said.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001304.html


And others suggested that even this level of fireproofing wasn't consistently applied.

Quote:
Roger Morse, an architect who investigated the WTC's fireproofing from the early 1990s to June 2001, said that the towers suffered from the same sorts of deficiencies as many other high-rise office buildings in the United States and Europe. He noted that fireproofing on long-span joists was often "extremely thin" (less than the 3/4 inch specified in the FEMA/ASCE report) and that some structural elements were never fireproofed in places because ductwork prevented ready access. Moreover, he observed that fireproofing on the columns had been coming off because it had been applied over the rust that had built up on the columns, and the rust was flaking from the steel.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001304.html


There's also the position at which the towers were hit.

Quote:
Solomon [i.e., "Robert Solomon, assistant vice president for building and life-safety codes for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)" --mm] questions whether the thickness of fireproofing is related to how fast the buildings collapsed. He notes that Two WTC, which fell first, was struck at a lower point than One WTC, and thus the damaged Two WTC had more weight to support. The relative times to collapse "probably had more to do with the additional weight that [Two WTC] was trying to support," he says.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/001304.html


NIST said several factors were involved, in "Finding 58" of the official report:

Quote:
Finding 58: The time it took for each WTC tower to collapse was due primarily to the differences in structural damage, the time it took the fires to travel from the impact area across the floors and core to critical locations, and the time it took to weaken the core and exterior columns. WTC 2 had asymmetric structural damage to the core including the severing of a corner core column and WTC 1 had more symmetrical damage. The fires in WTC 2 reached the east side of the building more quickly, within 10 to 20 minutes, than the 50 to 60 minutes it took the fires in WTC 1 to reach the south side.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-6ExecutiveSummary.pdf


Whatever the accuracy of these ideas, its clear that theres more to this issue than simply the time at which the towers were hit.


In summary, here are some possible factors contributing to WTC 2's collapsing only 56 minutes after being hit, compared to WTC 1's time of 104 minutes (or 102 minutes according to page 19 of the last source quoted above):
  • WTC 2 had thinner fireproofing than WTC 1 (source);
  • WTC 2 was hit lower, hence had more weight for the damaged area to support, than WTC 1 ("more weight" is self-evident, I think, but here's a source for Robert Solomon's opinion that the extra weight was a factor in the relative timing of the collapses);
  • WTC 2's structural damage was more asymmetric than WTC 1's (self-evident, I think, but here's a source anyway) (whether this would make WTC 2 more or less prone to collapse is beyond my realm of expertise, but the theory that it would make WTC 2 more unstable, hence more prone to collapse, seems plausible to me);
  • WTC 2's fires were quicker than WTC 1's fires in reaching the side of the building which would later bow at the initiation of the collapse (and in which direction the tops of the buildings would tilt, a little or a lot, at the beginning of the collapse), namely WTC 2's east side and WTC 1's south side. (source)

For comparison, I'll repeat the obvious factors already mentioned by Fintan which would have contributed to the opposite result: WTC 2 taking longer to collapse (after being hit) than WTC 1:
  • Because WTC 2 was hit more indirectly, less fuel remained in the building after the plane crash/explosion than in the case of WTC 1.
  • For the same reason, probably less of the fuel which exploded during the WTC 2 plane crash exploded within the building, though whatever structural damage this explosion caused was probably more asymmetric, than in the case of WTC 1.
  • As a result of the preceding two points, WTC 2's fires presumably would have been ignited less effectively/thoroughly and fed less jet fuel than WTC 1's fires.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christophera



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:04 am    Post subject: Flight 11 Hit The Wrong Tower Reply with quote

I've put a great deal of thought into understanding why the wrong tower fell first. Fintans points about the illogic of the fall sequence are correct.

The first point that stuck with me was that the towers must have had a fixed detonation sequence. When following that supposition I found that there was a clear path of logic, and so followed it to it's logical end which shows that flight 93 was a backup, to make sure both towers were hit by jetliners.

Satisfied with the final outcome of the logic, I incorporated the product in my web site.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"

Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

christophera wrote:

I've put a great deal of thought into understanding why the wrong tower fell first.


You certainly have. I read your analysis yesterday and it kicked my butt. Excellent work.

It's the first description that made any sort of sense out of what I saw.

Welcome, and thanks for stopping by.

Quote:

Clearly, IF remote control was present with the planes, THEN the strikes on the buildings would coincide with the fall sequence of the towers because those in control would be logically compelled to make the ruse as believable as possible.

From: Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667


I agree. However...

IF the actual intent of the ruse was to eventually implicate those who fabricated the 'mainstream story', THEN some of what appear to be discrepancies with the mainstream story might be perfectly executed elements of the 'larger' ruse.

Knowing that intelligent skeptics such as yourself could never accept the planes causing the collapses, those in power would be logically compelled to create a ruse that would eventually implicate a perfect patsy - the outgoing administration.

Therefore, some apparent 'errors' were intentionally scripted into the operation in order to implicate the chosen patsies at the appropriate time through managed skepticism of the mainstream story.

If the ruse was intended to produce the illusion of 'human error', while casting manageable doubt on the mainstream explanation, then flight 11 hit the intended tower.

If the planes did strike their intended targets, then remote control could have been used to direct them.

If the planes did strike their intended targets, then those in control would be logically compelled to use remote control guidance if it reduced the potential of human error interfering with the intended ruse.

I agree that flight 93 was a backup. That suggests the primary importance of the operation was making sure a plane hit each tower within a specific window of time. To me, that supports the concept of a timer driven detonation sequence that you mention.

If you haven't read Fintan's expose of the CIA FAKES, you're in for a treat. The 'Orgy of Evidence' concept he proposes is what I'm referring to in trying to describe the 'larger ruse'.

I'm very interested in hearing how your analysis was eventually received by the 911 'Truth' community, and what your thoughts are regarding the demolition of WTC7.

Thanks again for your excellent analysis, and I'm looking forward to your involvement with the forum.

Cheers!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Christophera



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:40 pm    Post subject: Second layer of deception Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
christophera wrote:

I've put a great deal of thought into understanding why the wrong tower fell first.


You certainly have. I read your analysis yesterday and it kicked my butt. Excellent work.

It's the first description that made any sort of sense out of what I saw.

Welcome, and thanks for stopping by.

Quote:

Clearly, IF remote control was present with the planes, THEN the strikes on the buildings would coincide with the fall sequence of the towers because those in control would be logically compelled to make the ruse as believable as possible.

From: Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667


I agree. However...

IF the actual intent of the ruse was to eventually implicate those who fabricated the 'mainstream story', THEN some of what appear to be discrepancies with the mainstream story might be perfectly executed elements of the 'larger' ruse.

Knowing that intelligent skeptics such as yourself could never accept the planes causing the collapses, those in power would be logically compelled to create a ruse that would eventually implicate a perfect patsy - the outgoing administration.

Therefore, some apparent 'errors' were intentionally scripted into the operation in order to implicate the chosen patsies at the appropriate time through managed skepticism of the mainstream story.

If the ruse was intended to produce the illusion of 'human error', while casting manageable doubt on the mainstream explanation, then flight 11 hit the intended tower.

If the planes did strike their intended targets, then remote control could have been used to direct them.

If the planes did strike their intended targets, then those in control would be logically compelled to use remote control guidance if it reduced the potential of human error interfering with the intended ruse.

I agree that flight 93 was a backup. That suggests the primary importance of the operation was making sure a plane hit each tower within a specific window of time. To me, that supports the concept of a timer driven detonation sequence that you mention.

If you haven't read Fintan's expose of the CIA FAKES, you're in for a treat. The 'Orgy of Evidence' concept he proposes is what I'm referring to in trying to describe the 'larger ruse'.

I'm very interested in hearing how your analysis was eventually received by the 911 'Truth' community, and what your thoughts are regarding the demolition of WTC7.

Thanks again for your excellent analysis, and I'm looking forward to your involvement with the forum.

Cheers!


Hello Jerry,

I understand your point about the second layer of deception.

The problem I have with it is that I know they would just as soon keep the present administration in if possible. Of course there is a contingent plan and it would/will operate as you suggest.

The issue I have with the second layer of deception is that it compromises the first layer, which is already difficult enough to conduct.

My take on the use of remotes is that it creates too much vulnerability to leaks, blackmail etc. The timers separate the perps that wired the building and make it so the actors on the ground can exist without betraying themselves or living in fear. They have to be able to perform for years. The stresses of doing so i nconstant deception would be too great.
Presently they act with attitudes covering their minimal involvement, people expect this, it looks normal.

Remember F-9/11, gwb after hearing about the second tower, his fixed gaze, head nodding slightly. Classic symptoms of post hypnotic recall. The actors are all on this level which provides a much more believeable performance.

of course the "overinformation" of the "Orgy of Evidence" is vital to keeping people confuced and distracted. There is a covert operation of agents currently on the web thhat work together with certain web sites to create a false front of exposure.

_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"

Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christophera wrote:
I understand your point about the second layer of deception.


Great, thanks. I'm interested in discussing the planes issue in greater detail, but I'd like to emphasize that however the planes were navigated, those facts are essentially irrelevant to the basic conclusions of your research which indicates to me that:

The plane impacts had no causal relationship to the tower collapses.

The WTC towers were built with explosive material embedded in the concrete core, designed to demolish the building in a top down sequence when properly triggered.

How one chooses to integrate that information into their perception of the 'ruse' is one of our favorite topics here, but I'd like to continue that conversation in another post soon.

The main point now is that, IMO, your research does two spectacular things:

1. Provides an explanation (finally) for what I see in the collapse videos.
2. Puts the 'offical' explanation of the collapse to bed once and for all.

Understanding the how is necessary in pinpointing the who, so you've done us a great service with your research.

Quote:
There is a covert operation of agents currently on the web thhat work together with certain web sites to create a false front of exposure.


I'm glad you're aware of this operation. IMO, the entire '911 Truth' Movement was also designed with a self destructing core, and I think I hear the timers being set for summer 08. But we'll get to that...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
The plane impacts had no causal relationship to the tower collapses.

The WTC towers were built with explosive material embedded in the concrete core, designed to demolish the building in a top down sequence when properly triggered.




Explosives being present from the day the towers were build makes sense, as they would only need a few days to check if everything would be working as they had planned. This correlates with the many evacuations in the weeks prior to 9/11. Any firm could have done this, as they would most likely be told that the towers would be taken down sometime in the future. They would then be forced to silence by being told that the planes hitting the buildings had to have set off the pre-placed explosives. Plausible? If the official authorities had painfully admitted that the towers had been built with explosives, they could simply have used that as an excuse for the obvious, but accidental (sic) demolition of the towers. Not so plausible??

As for the south tower falling first; could there have been anything of operational importance in the north tower? (Antenna, HQ [or was that in WTC7], anything else?). In this scenario the south tower had to fall first no matter what, and the fact that the plane hit the side of the tower could have been an "unfortunate" mistake. If the plane had buried itself deep into the south tower, as with the north tower, the fact that it fell first could be blamed on the sheer weight of the much larger top section (having being hit lower). Plausibe? The most plausible effect of such a hit would be a toppeling effect where the top section would tip into neighbouring structures, and the lower part left standing.

What contradicts this is the report from the North tower by janitor Rodrigues and his work mates, which claimed that there was a basement explosion seconds prior to a distant "boooom" (when the plane hit). I am not sure about this individuals credibility, but from the interviews I have heard, and based on his employment records (20 years of service), he seems legit and sincere enough. One of his mates was working on an elevator shaft (I think), and got seriously burned from what he said came from the basement. Equipment (a generator of some sort was also totally destroyed by some force coming from below). This is hearsay, but it may help understand the planning involved in the demolition and the molten steel. With regards to seizmic spikes, I have seen evidence "proving" both the presence of a secondary explosion and the contrary. Also according to firemen and civilians shortly after the planes hit, the lobby looked like it had been bombed (marble on the walls crushed, windows disintegrated, fine particle dust everywhere, etc). Fire (from jet fuel) just couldn't have traveled all the way down and done that kinf of damage to the lobby. Pictures from the impact "wound", where several people are shown standing in the opening (the redhair lady waving) also proves that the fires died out shortly after the impact.

Some people also claim (Karl Schwartz, I think) that by measuring (triangulation?) from the ground, it had to have been a 737 that hit the south tower, not Flight 175. He also claims that the engine that landed in the street (from the south tower plane) also belongs to a 737. I haven't looked into the technical aspect of engine parts, nor the mathematics supporting such a statement, so disproving or proving this point would be of grat importance. Have anyone measured the wing span of the inpact hole? If it indeed was a 737 that hit the south tower, deliberatly making the "corner hit" for pyrotechnical effect would be rather risky, wouldn't it, risking the possible fallout of larger, more identifiable plane parts clearly proving the presence of another plane than flight 175 if it had "missed" with a larger margin and blowing the entire game plan. On the other hand I understand the psychological effect of the pyrotechnical angle.

As for types of airplanes, I found this posting on a forum interesting:
Quote:

posted on 2-4-2006 at 03:02 PM (post id: 2116737) - single

quote: Originally posted by Marquall
I remember reading somewere that the designer of the WTC was interviewed after 9/11 or something and he said that the towers were designed to withstand the biggest plane in world "at the time" which wasn't the 767 cause it was released later. I forget where i read it unfortunatly or else i'd give you the link.


This was probably Frank Demartini and the big jet at the time was the 707. The 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio because of its ability to reach higher speeds, and it would've hit the towers with more force than a bigger but slower 767.

The FEMA Report (section 1.5.2) states that the 767s that hit the WTC Towers weighed about 274,000 pounds, and the relevant, equiv. weight of a 707 would be 263,000 pounds.

According to Boeing sites (1, 2), the cruise speed of a 707 is 607 mph, and the cruise speed of a 767 is 530 mph.

To nip the argument of "well that's only a cruise speed!," the 707 also had a higher thrust to weight ratio.


Quote:
External Source

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.

Also, 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.



Source: FEMA Report with Commentary, section 1.5.2. Full calcs are there.

So (these are rounded to the nearest units):

707:
263,000 pounds (FEMA) = 119,545 kg (m)
607 mph = 271 m/s (v)
p = mv
p = 32,396,695 kg m/s
p = 32,397 Mg m/s

767:
274,000 pounds (FEMA) = 124,545 kg (m)
530 mph = 237 m/s (v)
p = mv
p = 29,517,165 kg m/s
p = 29,517 Mg m/s

So, taking speed or thrust/weight ratios into account, a 707 would have more momentum upon impact and would require more energy to stop than a 767 would. So if the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact, or multiple 707 impacts, then they were designed to withstand (a) 767(s). So that argument doesn't really work.

And either way, dude, think about it.

Jets are not dense. They're made mostly of aluminum and the fuselage is just a big hollow tube. Jets are made as light as possible so that they can fly in the air. That's never taken into account for skyscrapers, because skyscrapers don't have to fly. They only have to sit on the ground and support a lot of weight.

The WTC were very dense. Hundreds of steel columns, with the inner columns being very thick, and then you still have trusses and concrete slabs, of which you wouldn't be ramming through the width of (about 4" or so), but the length of (much bigger; breadth of an entire floor). Same with the trusses.

It would rip a jet apart immediately, no question. Just flying through a single row of perimeter columns would destroy a jet.



One thing is for certain, those towers were brought down, one way or the other, and the planes (jet fuel) had very little to do with the acual collapse.

(more later...)

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6516

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 1:29 pm    Post subject: 9/11 Points Reply with quote

Great info on the 707 versus 767 issue.
It might be a small point, but in the soundbite world we live in,
stuff like this is what counts with Joe Public.

9/11 Dude: Those towers were designed to be hit by a plane like that.
Joe Public : Nah, they were designed to take a 707, not a 767.

9/11 Dude: But a 707 can punch a building harder than a 767!
Joe Public : Get away! Really?

9/11 Dude: Yeah, the 767 is fractionally bigger, but the 707's got much more poke.
Joe Public : I see.

9/11 Dude: Those towers were designed to be hit by a plane like that.
Joe Public : Ok.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: 707 vs. 767: evidence, anyone? Reply with quote

As I see it, the 707 versus 767 thing begs a few questions:
  • Were WTC 1 and 2 indeed designed to survive the impact of a 707? (Source?)
  • What speed of impact was considered? Maximum speed (as in a deliberate crash)? Typical landing/take-off speed (as in an accidental crash, e.g. in fog)? (Source?)
  • Was the effect of fuel (how much?) and resulting fires considered? (Source?)

On 9/11/01, WTC 1 and 2 certainly did survive the impact of two 767s (unless you dispute which planes hit the towers). What's more, they both survived at least 50 minutes of the resulting fires.

Were they designed to survive more that? I don't know about Joe Public (he's pretty gullible), but Joe Skeptic isn't going to assume that they were, unless you can present evidence. (C.T. Joe, however, may assume just that, because it supports his theory that the towers wouldn't have collapsed without explosives.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will of course source it in the update. I mainly found this to be of interest, because the argument has been used to counter claim that the plane didn't bring down the bulding.

From memory logic (until we meet again):
1) The architects said it was meant to sustain an inpact from a 707, the largest plane at that time. (maybe even multiple inpacts, I'll have to check that)
2) If you design a building like this the logical thing would be to design it for cruising speed or maximum speed, yes.
3) Maximum fuel load would be logical. Anything else would be strange planning. Physics says jet fuel doesn't melt steel. The design of planes cannot match the structure of the WTC, and would thus not cause any severe stuctural damage. In a worst case senario the top would probably tip over. As you said, they survived for about 50 minutes.

As for other types of planes, I'm not sure. Other people claim that. I'll have to take a closer look. Regardless, it is only important as to the claim that flight 175 didn't crash into that particular building. It could be disinfo... I am not ready to answer that question yet.

The totality of inconsistencies will hopefully establish a sound case (based on the available physical and testimonial evidence) that will convince a great number of Joes (and Jills). We have only just begun, and evidence will come. My initial post was just meant to jump start myself and throw a few things around.

I will reference what you asked for regarding sources later.

As for now it's drink up and goodnight! Wink

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeepLogos wrote:
From memory logic (until we meet again):
1) The architects said it was meant to sustain an inpact from a 707, the largest plane at that time. (maybe even multiple inpacts, I'll have to check that)
2) If you design a building like this the logical thing would be to design it for cruising speed or maximum speed, yes.

It's one thing to say what would have been "the logical thing" to do, it's another thing to assert that that's what was done. For example, in retrospect, it might have been "logical" to design WTC 1 and 2 to withstand terrorist airplane attacks. It may be, however, that they were actually designed to withstand accidental plane crashes resulting from fog or something. In any case, evidence (of what they designed for) would be helpful.

DeepLogos wrote:
3) Maximum fuel load would be logical. Anything else would be strange planning. Physics says jet fuel doesn't melt steel. The design of planes cannot match the structure of the WTC, and would thus not cause any severe stuctural damage. In a worst case senario the top would probably tip over. As you said, they survived for about 50 minutes.


Again, you're making assumptions, and Joe Skeptic wouldn't let these fly. It seems like maximum fuel load would be logical, as you say, but if the scenario which the design was meant to prevent was not a terrorist attack, but a pilot error resulting from poor visibility (e.g., fog), they might have ignored the possibility of a plane crashing right after take-off (and with maximum fuel load), thinking that a plane wouldn't take off if the fog/weather were too severe, whereas a plane might get ready to land (with less than maximum fuel load) in poor visibility resulting from weather conditions (e.g., severe fog) that were not fully or properly anticipated when the plane took off, perhaps hours earlier.

Also, it might have been that there was only so much the designers were prepared to prevent against, and high-speed fully-fueled plane crashes along with the resulting fires were either not anticipated or dismissed as too unlikely or too impractical to design against. Yet they might have been willing to advertise, and perhaps overstate or exaggerate, the buildings' design features. This could explain why the buildings were claimed to be designed to withstand the impact of a 707, even if they weren't designed to withstand the resulting fires. Such a claim might have also served to reassure people who worried about the danger of an (accidental) plane strike against what were to be the world's two tallest buildings.

Here again, sources would be helpful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1669
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject: Rebuttal... Reply with quote

mcauleym said:
Quote:
This could explain why the buildings were claimed to be designed to withstand the impact of a 707, even if they weren't designed to withstand the resulting fires.


The fires are irrelevant to the destruction of the towers - this has been more than well-established. Smouldering would be a more accurate desription, anyway.

Quote:
Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, 1 and 2 World Trade Center were designed to survive an impact and resulting fires from a collision by the largest commercial aircraft at the time, a Boeing 707-340. Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the 767-200s used on 9-11 were only slightly larger than 707s.
...

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
....

Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.


from: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.