How’s planes took down the first tower
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Do the math, frens. A northern royal albatross maxes out at about 18 lbs. One of the WTC towers massed 500,000 tons. The airplane itself (767-200) would have had a maximum gross weight of 315,000 lb (or 157.5 tons). Imagine running a VW Beetle into a massive semi-trailer at a speed of 450 mph. The plane will be totally smashed, taking out support columns. The fuel burn would weaken the remaining structure to collapse. Once the collapse starts, it feeds on itself. No surprise to anyone familiar with structural mechanics.
My beef is
Planes are built to be light
Buildings are meant to stand strong
The plane would damage the building no doubt (asymmetrically)
but much of the fuel would burn very quickly
and a weakened structure would not collapse that completely at near free fall speed into it's own footprint
Airplanes are built to be as light as they can be, but a 767-200 fully loaded at impact would still weigh 157.5 tons. Buildings are strong enough to withstand a collision with such an airplane---but not to withstand the buckling resulting from the fuel burn diminishing the strength of the steel by factors greater than the structural margin. And when there is any collapse, the downward momentum and shock force of the upper stories would cause each successive layer of columns to buckle immediately. So, yes, it would collapse that completely and into its own footprint. There is no force acting to push it outside of its footprint.
Are you an aeronautical engineer? Are you a structures engineer? Don't make summary conclusions when you don't know what you are talking about.
Same clap trap wrapped in an appeal to authority that I've been hearing for 20 years...
Still don't buy it.
That's because you can't tell good from bad...and have no engineering education.
I'm an A&P mechanic who specializes in structural repair of aircraft. These planes are very heavily built I have no doubt they could do the damage shown in the pictures.
No doubt at all.
Who needs a plane? Think Building 7.
The main issue that I have with all of the official narratives is that every vertical support beam on a particular floor would need to give out at exactly the same time. Melting all the inner and outer supports at exactly the same time would be unlikely.
Also, the top floors would need to give way first - even though they were the least loaded. Then the floor directly underneath would need to give way completely an instant later and so on until the ground floor collapsed.
Second issue, those supports cannot just melt. They need to give way completely in an instant. If they just sag slowly then the fall of the building will be slowed. For Building 7, a delay of only a tenth of a second per floor would have delayed the fall by nearly five seconds. That did not happen. It fell at free fall speed.
Third issue: Find another modern, steel-framed building anywhere in the world that collapsed into its own base at free fall speed due to fire. All buildings that collapsed in that way were blow up with explosives.
This building, for instance, is still standing!
You've nailed it well. Especially that each Bld. 7 floor needed to precisely give way from the top down to avoid the appearance of a planned demolition.
I'd like to add a Fourth issue: No changes to the International Building Codes have been made for high rise structures (60+ floors) in the 20 years since 9/11. A&E professionals worldwide, were apparently able to distinguish BS when they saw it and quietly continued on working as before. So did the insurance people, rates didn't go through the roof. No large building gets built without insurance. High rise construction continues as before.
That 3 building event was so out of our standard reality that it had to be ignored.
I'm not saying 911 wasn't an inside job,I'm just saying an aircraft can punch a hole like we saw,with no problem.