...
So Bush said hide it and get promoted, or tell about it and get fired. So let it be written, so let it be dumb.
...
In the case of 911 truth, some idiots made up lies and you fell for them. Case close, 10 years of failure on 11 Sep 2011; you joined 911 truth just in time for 10 years of complete failure.
What you could do instead of falling for lies for 10 years of failure. Get a PhD in how to understand reality. I got a masters in engineering so I would have lots to think about when flying jets all over the world, or digging ditches, and/or splitting wood all day. Learning is important, falling for lies from 911 truth is failure.
Beachnut,
I've read the 180 mph thing somewhere too, but if I recall, engineer Leslie Robertson said the towers were designed to handle the biggest jet of its time at some kind of full speed. Obviously the building did withstand that impact. Robertson went on to say they couldn't design the building to withstand all that burning fuel. So an hour or so later they collapsed when the fire became the "last straw." Just going by memory here.
Robertson did the 180 mph study/design. The full speed nonsense was in a white paper by the owners of the WTC, they were wrong. The most likely accident I think is a lost airliner landing. Why? Because if you take off and you are lost in the weather and can't see, lost equipment, you would climb into the clear, skip NYC in the clouds and land at Miami in the clear. But lost in the fog low on fuel, you are stuck trying to land in NYC, oops you hit the WTC slow. On take off you would climb immediately if you were lost, not fly around at 700 feet, you would climb.
A study done after 911 confirmed plane impacts below 200 mph would not do much damage to the WTC.
Robertson's designed for 180 mph, low on fuel, lost in the fog. 180 mph is a, Fact. The 600 mph white paper statement, is , marketing nonsense. I think the people doing the white paper knew Robertson designed, or studied for an aircraft impact, and they looked up the 707 he used, and saw Boeing listed 607 mph as the top speed, which in that context is cruising speed at and above 27,000 feet or so.
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bri...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx
http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345
I would have to search for the study on 200 mph which backs up Robertson, but from the impact energy on 911 and the damage done, you can see why 7 and 11 times the design impact energy caused major damage which crippled the towers by knocking out the fire systems and injecting to the core 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and "instantly" lighting the fuel on multiple floors.
Where did you get the aircraft at 180mph information?
Then you support the idea that the buildings should have collapsed immediately after impact. They did not.
What have you done for 10 years? You make up lies, or adopt lies from 911 truth and defend them with nothing but faith, and a hate for Bush? Why not try reality based research?
The two towers were the first structures outside of the
military and nuclear industries designed to resist the
impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed
that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land
at JFK or at Newark.
http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345
Guess what speed planes are at lost in the fog for landing? 180 mph.
Don't you look up stuff before making delusional claims on 911?
From Robertson's presentation in a real engineering journal.
Why does 911 truth fail to do research, comprehend events, and make up lies based on ignorance?
Next time pay attention in physics, E=1/2mv
2.
No, I do not support the building would fail because the impacts were 7 and 11 times greater in energy than designed for. If the planes were going slower, they would not inject 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into the core of the WTC towers, the fuel would remain mostly outside of the towers. Why did you fail to do the physics? The towers were extremely strong, able to withstand a huricane, very strong.
Have you done a study on the energy of a hurricane, or force against the WTC compared to an impact at high speed? Why would a high speed impact alone make the WTC fall? It was the fire, the office fires started by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on multiple floors in seconds that destroyed the WTC. Fire alone is enough to destroy buildings, this is why we use fireproofing, water sprinklers, and have firefighters. You know the FDNY, that is what they do is fight fire. When is the last time you know a building fire was started with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel did not fail? Got an example?
Can you calculate how much energy is required to destroy the WTC for an aircraft impact?
Why would the WTC collapse from impact alone? Got the numbers?
The WTC towers were not designed to survive the attack on 911, they were designed for a aircraft accident, a plane lost, low on fuel, landing. That would be the most likely accident.
Note: The top speed, the speed pilots try not to exceed in a 707 type aircraft at 700 feet would be ~350KIAS (350 KCAS)
The numbers for a 707 from Boeing were/are
Vmo (maximum Operating)
390 m.p.h. at sea level (339 kt.)
398 m.p.h. at 5,000 ft. (345 kt.)
406 m.p.h. at 10,000 ft. (352 kt.)
415 m.p.h. at 15,000 ft. (360 kt.)
425 m.p.h. at 20,000 ft. (369 kt.)
434 m.p.h. at 24,900 ft. (377 kt.)
Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are not assured.
On 911 Flight 175 impacted the WTC at ~590 mph, the terrorist did not care if there was a threat to structural integrity, and the engines can push the plane to speeds past VMO in 20 to 30 seconds from standard speeds. In addition there is a FAA mandated speed limit below 10,000 feet of 250 KIAS. The terrorists were breaking FAA rules on 911. Bad pilots
Got any questions on this?
)