Thread: So, terrorists?

hmmm, how many tests have been conducted within a controlled area that ran 747's into twin towers so that we can observe how that interacts with the architecture? I'll wait.......

Same ole bull shit I hear every year "OMG, you can tell it's a hoax, look at how the bombs go off on the lower floors as the plane hits."

"experts" also said the world was flat based on calculations and opinions without observing it.....an italian explorer blew that theory up with actual proof and first hand observation.

*** still waiting on those test results from the 747 trial run experiment ***

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

That is actually a myth; ancient geometers knew the world was round. Google; "Flat Earth Myth."

He said she said that he said that his brother said that his friends cousins uncle grandfathers best friend said the earth was round in 1400's. Need proof not wiki saying its been a myth. Last time i knew they still teach the earth was considered flat before ole colubus's trip.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Actually there isn't a need to test a 747 hitting the towers. According to the engineers that built it they were capable of withstanding a hit from a dc10. That was the largest plane at the time. That being said your model still looks foolish because they didn't withstand the hit of a 747. However they did withstand the hit of a 757. It was the fire that completed the damage and brought them down.


I guess i could point out that both planes are lighter then a dc-10. So the impact should have been far less then what the buildings took. 757's and 767's max out at 272,00 395,00 lbs. A dc-10 maxs out at 455,000 lbs with almost double the fuel capacity. However im guessing when they did their calculations for sustained impact fuel burn was not taken into consideration.

As for a 747 hitting the building. I would venture a guess at about twice the weight of a dc-10 and twice the fuel capacity which means 4 times that of the 757 and 767 those buildings would have not withstood the impact much less the fuel burn.

Either way your point is moot.

Aren’t 767’s bigger than a dc10?

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Actually there isn't a need to test a 747 hitting the towers. According to the engineers that built it they were capable of withstanding a hit from a dc10. That was the largest plane at the time.

Pretty sure the 747 is older than the DC-10

Cheers,


AetheLove

I don’t know how I found this...just check it out...let me know where these guys are mistaken. Not being sarcastic or cynical or whatever..just found this.

9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

Is it bullshit? (Honestly asking, not being an ass about anything)

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Pretty sure the 747 is older than the DC-10

Cheers,


AetheLove

Nope

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

Aren’t 767’s bigger than a dc10?

767 is a foot wider on wingspan, 3'3" narrower on width, 2' shorter on hieght, and 4' longer. Structure of the aircraft brings it in at 60 thousand more lbs then the 767. Some of that is going to be engine weight. The dc-10 is faster and able to carry more due to it has about 17 thousand more pounds of thrust.