What do you base the slower speed on? A big airplane has to be moving pretty fast not to stall or drop. I do not know how much more damage a new plane would do, but i am familiar with safety factors. I saw a quick interview with the architect of the towers. he said the towers should not have dropped. he was shocked. I think the whole design
concept was flawed.
9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters Here is an article that says the planes were well within design specs.
The planes did not bring down the towers, the inferno caused by their considerable fuel did.
Both towers took direct hits and stood.
A 707, inbound from Europe, lost in the fog, on approach to JFK.
Common sense? If you’re coming in to land slower is better, so that you don’t need as much runway to stop. If you’re making a kamikaze attack faster is better, so that your plane has more momentum and does more damage.
The stall speed on a 707 is about a quarter of its cruising speed.
No, you are not. You seem to forget that larger safety factors have greater costs involved, which makes a safety factor sufficient to protect from a plane moving three times faster and one and a half times heavier rather inefficient.
Cite?
Yeah, looking back, that sentence was rather clunkily written. That having been said, I think your post answered my questions anyway.
That is one heck of an informative website you linked to! I especially liked the article under the link “The Mysterious Leveling of Building 7”.
It makes me wonder… an organization pulled the wool over everyones eyes by leveling the WTC, yet they haven’t likewise silently quieted such an informative site as above? I mean, they can sure pull all manner of incredible feats, yet can’t (or won’t!) silence such a hard hitting fact finder like above?
Next time try linking to a reputable source, m’kay?
Was he more shocked that the towers fell or that he was suddenly alive again after dying in 1986?
Cisco is referring to Minoru Yamasaki, but I imagine gonzomax is referring to Leslie Robertson, whom I’m pretty sure I’ve seen voice his regrets that the towers didn’t hold up better as well, though possibly only in the way that any human in his position would feel doubts and guilt after such a tragedy, even if there was no reason to do so.
“The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.” - Leslie E. Robertson, World Trade Center lead structural engineer, The Bridge, March 2002
Later on in the same article: “It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.”
You can hear what Leslie Robertson has to say about the planes and the design criteria here. (click on impact of a plane)
It wasn’t the weight of the plane that caused the problem, it was the speed, and the fuel load. You know, the fuel that caused the fires.
First and foremost I would like to thank [most of] you guys for engaging in a highly controversial and interesting debate. I had a lot of fun reading many of your thoughts and claims (minus all the ad hominem attacks and the insults).
When the WTC was attacked approximately 9 years ago, I was 10 years old in the fifth grade. Watching the attack on television and the panic that spread through the city was traumatizing to me. As I grew older, I tried to suppress the memories of 9/11 because of the anxiety it produced for me. My best friend is a “truther”, as some of you refer to them, so I am familiar with the conspiracy theory AND the official story. I have remained neutral for the past 9 years because: a) I never fully believe what the news tells me b) do you know how terrifying it is to believe your government would fly planes into the towers and kill thousands of people they were meant to protect?
After reading up on many 9/11 sites and watching many videos, I was not fully convinced by the conspiracy theories. However, the theories did make me doubt the Pentagon attack. I couldn’t find enough evidence that a plane hit the pentagon. Does anyone have a link to footage of the pentagon attacks?
There’s no “smoking gun” in them. The best angle is from a pair of parking gate cameras that shoot about 3 frames per second and AA 77 crossed their lines of sight in about 15 seconds.
So, based on evidence, we cannot determine whether the pentagon was hit by a plane or not, correct?
Well, we do have those plane parts found in the debris and hundreds of witnesses, some of whom were overflown by the plane three miles west. No witnesses claimed “missile” other than hearsay from one guy who was in the Metro station.
Of course we can.
Airplane parts were found inside the Pentagon. Hundreds of people saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
It was caught on film from a security camera. (a crappy shot, but it was caught)
What more do you want?
Uh, they ID the remains of almost all the passengers from the plane that crashed into the pentagon. I wonder why you missed the evidence already posted.
The computer simulation of the Pentagon crash shows how a passenger plane was the only explanation for the damage even before the big impact, a missile or a small fighter jet can not cause all those light poles to fall.
And then we got almost all the remains identified.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020815123251/www.armymedicine.army.mil/armymed/news/releases/afip.htm
Is there anyone proposing the idea that a missile was shot into the Pentagon and then someone murdered the passengers and planted the bodies back in the building?
I didn’t read every single post in this thread so I must have skipped over it. So with that, piece of the puzzle, I’m not sure how I can believe all the conspiracy talk…Is there another sources that talks about the pentagon fatalities?
Read here for your one stop CT debunking.
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
And for the Pentagon in particular:
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html