Jump to content
NZT48

Israel did it.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, NZT48 said:

I don't doubt there is an Arab Muslim connection but the Jewish supremacist Israelis were using them. It was certainly not Muslim Arabs who brought those buildings down.

Again from your BBC link:

"An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil."

Last I checked, bin Laden was a Muslim Arab. And brought the buildings down.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NZT48 said:

 

Have you forgotten about the WTC construction manager (Frank A. De Martini) saying "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time."? The "fully loaded 707" he spoke of is a similar size to the planes that hit the towers. American Airlines Flight 11 had 92 occupants and was travelling at about 748 km/h at the time of impact. United Airlines Flight 175 had 65 occupants and was travelling at about 950 km/h at the time of impact.

We've discussed that before, the difference in max take-off weight between a 707 and a 767 is around 30,000kgs.

That represents one hell of a difference in Kinetic Energy (look up the equation if you don't know it.)

Of course they never actually slammed a 707 into the towers to see if the design actually could resist that. Given the subsequent architectural issues mentioned earlier I doubt the buildings would have actually survived a 707 impact let alone a 767.

I've seen articles relevant to 9/11 claiming the two aircraft are similar and there is in fact an error in the Official report but the difference between the aircraft is quite marked. Anyone who has flown on both, which I have, would be well aware of that.

Incidentally, have you ever read the Official Report ?

Cheers

                                       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2018 at 11:04 AM, Leonid said:

Pretty sure his hosted material breaks ISP rules.

If it's good enough for this forum to have rules, it's good enough for the ISP

How are you Leo? Welcome back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SceptreCore said:

How are you Leo? Welcome back

Good mate,

I never really leave but my posting habits reflect how busy I am. Am just coming out of the startup phase of a business, setting up another for/with my wife and our youngest is about to turn 1. Life is busy and crazier than DMB on LSD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

Good to hear biz is good Leo, but the thought of DMB/LSD is truly frightening 🙂

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 12:18 PM, chrisg said:

We've discussed that before, the difference in max take-off weight between a 707 and a 767 is around 30,000kgs.

That may be true for the 767-200ER (American Airlines Flight 11) that hit the north tower (although how short of the MTOW it was at the time should be considered, especially because the maximum number of passengers is 290 and the number of passengers on that flight was 81), but not for the Boeing 767-200 (United Airlines Flight 175) that hit the south tower, according to Wikipedia. According to https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7672_en.php the MTOW of the 767-200 is 136,078 KG, significantly less than the 151,500 KG MTOW of the 707-320B and 707-320C according to http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/707.pdf. Unless I am missing something.

On 1/6/2019 at 12:18 PM, chrisg said:

Incidentally, have you ever read the Official Report ?                                        

I read part of it a long time ago. I don't remember how much but I think it would be less than half. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chrisg said:

the thought of DMB/LSD is truly frightening

I assumed that was the norm, actually.  I mean, him being stoned out of his fucking mind is the most charitable I can get to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NZT48 said:

That may be true for the 767-200ER (American Airlines Flight 11) that hit the north tower (although how short of the MTOW it was at the time should be considered, especially because the maximum number of passengers is 290 and the number of passengers on that flight was 81), but not for the Boeing 767-200 (United Airlines Flight 175) that hit the south tower, according to Wikipedia. According to https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7672_en.php the MTOW of the 767-200 is 136,078 KG, significantly less than the 151,500 KG MTOW of the 707-320B and 707-320C according to http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/707.pdf. Unless I am missing something.

I read part of it a long time ago. I don't remember how much but I think it would be less than half. Why?

 

Hmm, that raises an interesting point, two actually.

The official report references the Boeing 707-120B, the first model to go into commercial service. It's MTOW was a little under 117,000KG. Several people have assumed that this was an error because the best known 707 is the -320B  The 120B, launched by Pan Am was limited production as Boeing moved quickly to develop the design because Douglas were not far behind them with the DC-8 and Convair with the Coronado. The latter was somewhat of a failure, the DC-8 initially slow to sell so it would be reasonable that the statement about the towers being designed to withstand impact by a 707 was definitely correct by manufacturer but which model ?

Being the discussions and concepts that led to the commitment to build WTC spanned across the late 50s into the early 60s it is probably reasonable to assume that in working back through the dusty volumes of the design documents the  investigators found that the aircraft the architects based their work upon was in fact the -120B. It depends when they drew the line in the sand and also just how much detail Frank Martin had - it's a pretty loose statement in aviation terms.

The second point is that a 707 is a narrow body four engined turbojet, the 767 a twin engined wide body.

The transfer  of energy into the building structure  would be considerably different between the two frontal areas of the referenced aircraft.The 707 engines would likely have gone straight through and done much less damage than the heavy turbofans of the 767.

So overall the statement is somewhat of a throwaway and in no way addresses two very different physical models.

Such throwaway comments seem to be seized upon by truthers rather often as "evidence."

I confess I'm not too surprised that you have never read the full report, somehow I doubt many conspiracy persons have, instead they cherry pick.

I have read the full report but your question did make me look closer at just what model 707 was being talked about, I now think that it was in fact the -120B, as the report states.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you even bother Chris? DMB here reckons the jews did it because the building was built to withstand a hit by an airplane.

It did. The buildings remained standing for some time.

The fact that the superstructure failed due to jet fuel is akin to designing a flak vest for a howitzer and then claiming the jews did it because someone took a direct blast in the chest from a Howitzer and died from being slammed into a tree at 200km/h.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

The main reason I mentioned 'the WTC construction manager (Frank A. De Martini) saying "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time."' was because of what chrisg said when he said the following:

On 1/5/2019 at 8:36 PM, chrisg said:

...it was in a time when such an atrocity was not even really a consideration.

It must have been a consideration if the buildings were designed to have aircraft crash into them.

 

Anyway, let's assume the type of 707 mentioned is the 707-120B. According to Boeing its MTOW is 117,000 KG, which according to  Frank A. De Martini is what the buildings were designed to withstand a crash from. The type of aircraft that hit the south tower is a 767-200. According to https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7672_en.php the MTOW is 136,078 KG and the maximum number of passengers 290. The difference between the MTOW of the 707 and the MTOW of the 767 is 19,078 KG. According to Wikipedia the number of passengers on the plane was 56. The difference between 290 and 56 is 234. 19,078/234 is 81.5 (KG) per passenger and their luggage. So a fully loaded 707-120B is about the same weight as a 767-200 with 56 passengers if each passenger plus their luggage weighs 81.5 KG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, my point was that whilst the possibility of an accidental impact was probably something the designers took  into some account, the B-25 impact on the Empire State many years before probably came to mind, such an act of terrorism was all but unthinkable in that time.

Even less a consideration would have been that an aircraft would deliberately impact the buildings at the high speed they did.

NYC has three very busy airports, JFK, La Guardia and Newark, you see aircraft over the city all the time but they are either at approach or take-off speeds or orbiting in a stack for landing.

In all cases those are much slower speeds than the literally suicidal speeds at which the hi-jacked aircraft hit.

Again, physics, potential energy turning to kinetic energy at impact.

Cheers

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Leonid said:

Good mate,

I never really leave but my posting habits reflect how busy I am. Am just coming out of the startup phase of a business, setting up another for/with my wife and our youngest is about to turn 1. Life is busy and crazier than DMB on LSD.

Oh good for you! Except for having no time anymore. What's the biz?

nice to have you give some of your classic knee slapping comments 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leonid said:

Why did you even bother Chris? DMB here reckons the jews did it because the building was built to withstand a hit by an airplane.

It did. The buildings remained standing for some time.

The fact that the superstructure failed due to jet fuel is akin to designing a flak vest for a howitzer and then claiming the jews did it because someone took a direct blast in the chest from a Howitzer and died from being slammed into a tree at 200km/h.

🙂

Because I don't like ignorance, disinformation and scientific ineptitude I guess mate.

In the end the truthers are a very large purveyor of "fake news," we get enough of that from Donnie twat in Washington who thinks if you say something long enough and loudly enough it will become truth.

Sort of ironic that the biggest source of "fake news" is the very person who popularised the phrase  :)

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

Sort of ironic that the biggest source of "fake news" is the very person who popularised the phrase  :)

Not really chris, I think it is the same sort of psychological issue that we often see in the conservative religious right. People who blather on and on about family values, all the while putting their dicks where they shouldn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aliali said:

Not really chris, I think it is the same sort of psychological issue that we often see in the conservative religious right. People who blather on and on about family values, all the while putting their dicks where they shouldn't.

🙂

Trumps agenda, after rampant narcissism, is somewhat broader than family, he seems to believe he can do what he pleases and that a country can be run on the same agenda as a reality TV show  🙂

Strangely for a U.S. president he doesn't make much of a deal about religion, beyond invoking the word of God to further his agenda. Nominally he is a Presbyterian but in his own mind he seems to think he is God or at least a holy son 🙂

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-god-talk-is-turning-america-off-religion

Cheers

,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aliali said:

Not really chris, I think it is the same sort of psychological issue that we often see in the conservative religious right. People who blather on and on about family values, all the while putting their dicks where they shouldn't.

Bit like progressives and sexual assault.

Any time a Hollywood male proclaims to be a feminist, you can start the clock on the rape charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, SceptreCore said:

Oh good for you! Except for having no time anymore. What's the biz?

nice to have you give some of your classic knee slapping comments 

As usual - IT. Wife’s business is arts and crafts.

Mine’s a bit more complicated. I do channel stuff. My MSP does high end networking, DC infra and enterprise storage for smaller MSPs who have the customers but lack the skill to turn them from $5k/mo VPN meshes with AD in each site to $20k/mo private cloud/sd-wan opportunities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2019 at 8:36 PM, chrisg said:

This debate has been going on with him for years, over time I've approached all the "evidence" he has presented with an open mind then rebutted with facts from rather more reputable sources, like a bunch of professional explosives experts who had themselves looked into the allegations over the buildings having been deliberately blown up and concluded they could not have done it without being caught in the act before the "detonations."

I haven't seen you rebut the evidence presented in the OP.

On 1/7/2019 at 8:27 PM, chrisg said:

Because I don't like ignorance, disinformation and scientific ineptitude I guess mate.

Then why do you ignore the evidence presented in the OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 11:18 PM, chrisg said:

We've discussed that before,

I really can't understand why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

 In the main all the "evidence" is old news DMB and has been rebutted in several previous threads when we have discussed 9/11 in the past.

You may like to rinse and repeat, I don't particularly, but the mention of the comparison to a 707 WAS somewhat new, so I addressed it.

Cheers

 

Edited by chrisg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The survivabilty thing is irrelevant in the context of any conspiracy theory - it was the fuel that did the damage and it wasn't really considered in the engineering/design phase.

Regardless even if the buildings stood they'd have been condemned and presented the world's biggest bitch of a demolition puzzle.


But DMB on LSD... almost sounds like a song title (with apologies to AC/DC)

DMB on LSD ... Oy!  Oy!  Oy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know absolutely nothing about aircraft design and building tolerances, but while a building may have been built to withstand an impact, it would have never been tested. these towers were built in the 60s or 70s?, a time when computer modeling would have been in its infancy

100s or 1000s of people saw the planes fly into the buildings, were they all lying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chrisg said:

 In the main all the "evidence" is old news DMB and has been rebutted in several previous threads when we have discussed 9/11 in the past.

 

Show me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×