short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

Abookamongstthemany

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtccore.jpg&imgrefurl=http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtc-core.html&h=227&w=295&sz=10&hl=en&start=53&tbnid=ou4IRfkNinja3M:&tbnh=88&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Bcentral%2Bcore%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

therover

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtccore.jpg&imgrefurl=http://members.cox.net/damor1/wtc-core.html&h=227&w=295&sz=10&hl=en&start=53&tbnid=ou4IRfkNinja3M:&tbnh=88&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwtc%2Bcentral%2Bcore%26start%3D36%26ndsp%3D18%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg

I never said there WASN"T a central core. Your first picture link, where is says "This is a Graphic Showing the Actual Structure" shows the external walls are load bearing. The central core was not designed to hold the entire load.

onelongsong

therover wrote:

The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.

They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.

The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.

you are correct. but the holes in the sides also drew O2 up the center stairwell causing the chimney or "bellows" effect.
i can doctor any video to show whatever you want but this is what happened.

sonicreducer

http://www.911lies.org/images2/therm..._w tc_911.jpg

does anyone know the date this picture was taken? i've heard a counter argument that these beams were cut afterwards.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

therover wrote:

The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.

They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.

The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.

The Max takeoff weight for a fully loaded 707 is 333,649.6 lbs which is what the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits of.

A fully loaded 767-223er is 395,000 lbs.

It's not that much bigger of an airplane man....

therover

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The Max takeoff weight for a fully loaded 707 is 333,649.6 lbs which is what the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits of.

A fully loaded 767-223er is 395,000 lbs.

It's not that much bigger of an airplane man....

That's 60,000 more pounds of force. Please show me where they were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from an airplane.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

therover wrote:

That's 60,000 more pounds of force. Please show me where they were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from an airplane.

It was in the video.

Also the critera for the WTC construction was for a fully loaded max weight 707. Were the 767's at max weight?

Here are some weight configurations for the 767-200ER

767-200ER - Empty with PW4056s 76,566kg (168,800lb), with CF680C2B4s 76,476kg (168,600lb),

operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb), with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb).

Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb).

sonicreducer

it seems like 60,000 extra pounds up against "however many pounds the trade centers weighed" is a pointless argument anyway. if it failed without the use of explosives, it seems like it was a flawed design regardless of the 60,000 extra lbs.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sonicreducer wrote:

it seems like 60,000 extra pounds up against "however many pounds the trade centers weighed" is a pointless argument anyway. if it failed without the use of explosives, it seems like it was a flawed design regardless of the 60,000 extra lbs.

Well from what I have provided, the planes can effectively have the same weight, or much lighter depending on the exact configuration (and payload), in the video it says the 767's were actually lighter. So how can something the tower is essentially designed for more or less completely obliterate it?

austin

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

sonicreducer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well from what I have provided, the planes can effectively have the same weight, or much lighter depending on the exact configuration (and payload), in the video it says they were actually lighter. So how can something the tower is essentially designed for more or less completely obliterate it?

agree

the towers didn't fall b/c of jet fuel solely. a lot of the jet fuel came out in a big fireball, a lot of it probably burned up rapidly, and the objects that were soaked with jet fuel only burned hot enough to 'weaken' the steel. there were many other factors that contributed to the towers demise, so 60,000 lbs. of weight = how much more jet fuel probably wasn't 'that' significant of a change,...

therover

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Well from what I have provided, the planes can effectively have the same weight, or much lighter depending on the exact configuration (and payload), in the video it says the 767's were actually lighter. So how can something the tower is essentially designed for more or less completely obliterate it?

It didn't, it survived the impact.

norm

The towers were designed to withstand a jet plane crash. Perhaps the design was wrong. An engineer can design something and based on his calculations that what he designed will not fail. But short of a real world test he cannot be 100% certain. On 9-11 we saw the design fail.

BTW this in no way means I don't hold the Bush admin responsible for allowing this to happen.

austin

I'm in the process of what this utter piece of bullshit...

All these people keep bringing up the fact that it's impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way they did...

Well, do some research. They were designed to do exactly what they did.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

therover wrote:

It didn't, it survived the impact.

Do you think when they said the towers could survive a plane crashing into them, they had no idea there would be a fire involved at any point in the process?

When you make a statement like that as a designer it automatically implies that you know a fire will take place in the building... It's an explosion!

so....do you think a fully loaded 707 doesn't explode in a great big big fireball just like a 767?

:rolleyes:

therover

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Do you think when they said the towers could survive a plane crashing into them, they had no idea there would be a fire involved at any point in the process?

When you make a statement like that as a designer it automatically implies that you know a fire will take place in the building... It's an explosion!

so....do you think a fully loaded 707 doesn't explode in a great big big fireball just like a 767?

:rolleyes:

I don't know, your video doesn't say.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

therover wrote:

I don't know, your video doesn't say.

what would be your guess?

austin

Oh man. That was the biggest pile of horse shit I've ever witnessed in my life.

mookie9999

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Do you think when they said the towers could survive a plane crashing into them, they had no idea there would be a fire involved at any point in the process?

When you make a statement like that as a designer it automatically implies that you know a fire will take place in the building... It's an explosion!

so....do you think a fully loaded 707 doesn't explode in a great big big fireball just like a 767?

:rolleyes:

As someone mentioned earlier, no matter what designers feels, believe, even state, does not hold water to the actual event when it occurs. Furthermore, when the Twin Towers were built, I believe that they were designed to withstand a plane hitting the building. But I doubt back in the late '60's the designer and archtects would ever imagine hijackers slamming into the towers at full throttle. They probably assumed that if anyone hit the buildings in a plane it would be pilot error (like the Empire State Collision) and that pilot would be doing everything within his/her power to slow the plane down, not full speed ahead. Finally, even if they had the foresight to assume that someone would slam plane(s)!!! into the buildings at full speed and that the buildings would still stand, well, they were wrong. I wish we could ask the gentleman in the video his opinion now, but unfortunately, he was killed in 9/11. I have no problem posing questions about the ball being dropped time and again by Bush and his administration, but I feel the weight of the argument would hold alot more water if these conspiracy theorists drop some of their asinine thoughts (i.e. plane never crashed into Pentagon, Plane never crashed in PA, rather landed safely, 9/11 was an inside job,etc.) and focused on just posing the tough questions.

jlew24asu

ZZZzzzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzzZZZZz