The 767 is roughly 18% heavier than the 707 - *fully loaded*. The 767's that hit the WTC were NOT fully loaded. They only carried roughly 41% (10,000 gallons) of their fuel capacity -- making their kinetic punch a 'fair bit' less than what the WTC was designed to withstand. Take a look: 707 Max takeoff weight ('fully loaded')----- 328,060 lbs 767 Fuel Capacity -------------------- 23,980 gallons fuel Carried on 911 ------------ 10,000 gallons Max takeoff weight ('fully loaded) ------ 395,000 lbs SUBTRACTED by weight of 13,980 gallons of jet fuel @ 6.7 pounds per gallon: 395,000 - 93,666 lbs = 301,334 lbs final weight. That makes the 767 that hit the WTC almost 9% lighter than what the towers were designed to withstand. Curious, isn't it?
OK, so what, exactly, are you guys getting at? If I were to take all your concerns and arguments at face value, what does this all mean or suggest? To repeat, what are you getting at?
Means we've been fooled. By whom, and why...that is the question. How about for power and money? You can start connecting the dots right back to JFK. The dots are there to connect. It means there is an entanglement beyond most peoples imaginations. But what it means to me, in the long run, is this will be one of the prime catalysts that finally wake people up to the reality around them. And this will create a potential to change the way the world runs...the way we allow it to run. There are timelines set for big things to happen by 2012, in which the structures, the political and power structures that do not serve us...will come down...including potentially the US gov among many others. I see this as the kind of scandal that can catalyze such senarios. For example, in six years, can you imagine the halls of congress being empty because people are governing themselves locally? This is the kind of change I refer to, and this scandal has the seeds in it to backfire on its perpetrators like that. JohnnyK
Sure. If the engineers who designed for such a contingency assumed a fully fueled 707 colliding with the towers would later rest neatly inside it -- totally unscathed -- without spilling a drop of fuel. Absurd. Nope. They weren't even half full. These were short domestic jaunts - not overseas flights, remember. Nope. Underwriter Laboratories certified the structural integrity of the steel used in the WTC to 2000C at several hours. Also remember, a good portion of that combustible material ignited on impact. After half an hour post-impact, these 'incredibly hot' areas that were assumed to later bring down the towers, were curiously cool enough to allow people to wave for help in, escape to lower floors from higher floors through, and prompted a FDNY first responder to radio for only '2 hoses' to extinguish the 'raging inferno' at the impact site. Strange. The building collapsed at nearly the speed of free fall. Considering 75% of the building was totally unaffected from the crash or fires, one would have to assume these relatively light 'pancaking floors' telescoped a huge, pure steel inner core - at nearly the speed of gravity. Doubtful. Also, floors wouldn't collapse after the fires had cooled and the steel regained its strength. Any theory postulated by a sharp mind that explains events after the fact, sounds plausible.
STOP IT! STOP IT! I can't stand to hear all of this rational discussion about the event Just BELIEVE CNN and FOX and those who shipped off the steel for WTC. You must rally around the flag, fight the ENEMY. FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT. No dissent is allowed
Silverstein admitted in the PBS Special "America Rebuilds", he gave the order to pull to the building. Thats on video.
The strange thing is, how could anyone set up charges to pull such a burning building so perfectly within hours (hour?) of such an order? Was there a demolition crew around the corner ready to go? Anyway, there is some speculation he meant pull firemen off the job and let it burn. That too is a strange order coming from a landlord. How would that affect the buildings adjacent? Wouldn't the firemen be the ones to decide how a building is handled in a fire?
The answer is: they couldn't. According to demolition companies, it takes weeks of analysis, placement and logistics to properly wire a building to perfectly collapse within itself - like that witnessed at WTC 7. Silverstiens explanation is a farse because: 1) 'pull' is a common industry term used to refer to controlled demolition. 2) no steel lattice structure - in the history of the world - has EVER collapsed due to fire. And that includes far larger buildings that suffered far larger fires than WTC7. 3) WTC7 collapsed at the speed of free fall. Thats the smoking gun. WTC7 only suffered isolated pockets of damage. Even if the 'weak side' failed, it would have to tear down the structurally strong side of the building at the speed of gravity. Can't happen. Think about it. Each section is designed to hold itself up. Its not a house of cards where one side goes and the whole thing falls like a rock.
The explosive sniffing dogs were off kept the property the days prior. Interviews of tenants mentioned work being done in the building by "personnel in uniforms", and on top of it that was the very first time in the wtc's history also, that the internal security cameras were turned off. It doesn't take long with todays technology and remote controlled detonators to pull of something like that. Heck you can by a remote control digital unit for 100$ in any hobby shop with range of couple of miles. The info is all out there.