Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
19. The World Trade Center was design to withstand a plane no bigger then a 707
Fri Dec 19, 2014, 04:59 PM
Dec 2014

The plane that did hit the World Trade Center were all much larger then a 707 and fully loaded with fuel. What was considered in the design was the towers being hit by a 707 running out of fuel and headed to an airport. A full Fuel load was NEVER brought into the calculations (and if it was, would have shown that the towers would have FAILED even with a 707 if that 707 was fully loaded with Fuel load:

The three-page white paper titled Salient points with regard to the structural design of The World Trade Center towers described an analysis of a Boeing 707 weighing 336,000 pounds (152 t) and carrying 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of fuel impacting the 80th floor of the buildings at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h). It is unclear whether the effect of jet fuel and aircraft contents was a consideration in the original building design, but this study is in line with remarks made by John Skilling following the 1993 WTC bombing. Without original documentation for either study, NIST said any further comments would amount to speculation.—NIST 2005. pp. 305–307

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-14



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Two 767s were involved in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, resulting in the collapse of its two main towers. American Airlines Flight 11, a 767-200ER, crashed into the north tower, killing all 92 people on board, and United Airlines Flight 175, a 767-200, crashed into the south tower.


A Boeing 767 carried 16,700 Gallons of Fuel (South Tower) Collapsed At 9:59 am, the South Tower collapsed, 56 minutes after being struck.

A Boeing 767-ER carried 24,140 Gallons of Fuel (North Tower) The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.

Thus while a Boeing 707 was considered in the design, fuel load of a 707 was NOT. The planes that did hit the Towers had about the same fuel load as a fully loaded 707 and it appears that the FIRE from those planes is what did in the Towers NOT the planes themselves.

Bin Laden was an ENGINEER and thus knew what it would take to knock the trade center down. Now, bin Laden expected a more conventional collapse not the pancaking that happened, but he knew there was enough fuel in those planes to do the job. IT was the FUEL that caused the tower to pancake NOT the impact itself.

Thus the TOWERS were never designed to take a hit by a FULLY FUELED JET. An almost empty jet looking to Land as JFK Airport but not a fully loaded jet and it was the FUEL burning on three floors at once that cause the Towers to pancake.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Nuclear reactors are pre-positioned dirty bombs. bananas Dec 2014 #1
In January 2014, Ukraine warned that rebels had threatened its own reactors. bananas Dec 2014 #2
Whooowee!!! The scary stories are coming non-stop now! DeSwiss Dec 2014 #3
Megan Rice of Transform Now Plowshares bananas Dec 2014 #5
"nuclear facilities arose as a key option" for the 911 attacks. bananas Dec 2014 #4
Anyone being familiar with how containment buildings COLGATE4 Dec 2014 #8
The World Trade Center was designed to withstand a plane impact, and it did - they fell down anyway. bananas Dec 2014 #14
And your expertise on how containment is constructed COLGATE4 Dec 2014 #15
The World Trade Center was design to withstand a plane no bigger then a 707 happyslug Dec 2014 #19
yeah, right. KG Dec 2014 #6
Actually it wouldnt surprise me if its true but there is a difference in planning something cstanleytech Dec 2014 #7
Exploding cigars for Fidel! Nitram Dec 2014 #10
What a fucking joke the media is, right? Washington Free Beacon? Is that a lighthouse? Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #13
Washington Free Beacon is owned by the Washington Times. n/t FSogol Dec 2014 #21
Given the shoddy, unmaintained status of nuclear power plants, why bother? Demeter Dec 2014 #9
You have no idea what you're talking about. nt Union Scribe Dec 2014 #27
Riiight Demeter Dec 2014 #29
It's pretty clear you don't, actually. NuclearDem Dec 2014 #32
Nope. Union Scribe Dec 2014 #33
One headline you will never read.... FLPanhandle Dec 2014 #11
America not scared enough by a current hacker attack in a movie company, we have to dig through Fred Sanders Dec 2014 #12
'homeland security' 'for profit' Corps monster wants more Federal billions and billions. Sunlei Dec 2014 #16
Disclosure of the report, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act<< President O, made it easie Sunlei Dec 2014 #17
Bring it on North Korea so we can whip your ass bigdarryl Dec 2014 #18
Unrec. The Washington Beacon is dreck from the Washington Times via editor Bill Gertz. FSogol Dec 2014 #20
Containment domes were design to take all but a direct hit by an Atomic Bomb. happyslug Dec 2014 #22
Thank you for providing correct information about COLGATE4 Dec 2014 #23
Par for the course for the anti-nuclear movement. NuclearDem Dec 2014 #25
Yep. Gets old after so many years. nt COLGATE4 Dec 2014 #26
Yep. Union Scribe Dec 2014 #28
PROTIP: Not every nuclear power plant is as poorly-designed as Chernobyl. NuclearDem Dec 2014 #24
True. Some are worse. Demeter Dec 2014 #30
Bullshit lies. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #31
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»DIA: North Korea Planned ...»Reply #19