Nancy Pelosi attacks the POTUS

[senerhu]

Nancy Pelosi is truly dedicated to her Party. If Bill Clinton were in office right now, she wouldn't have voted against going into Iraq and I'd be willing to bet, she'd be supporting Bill Clinton all the way if he were in George W Bush's shoes right now, as far as the Iraqi War is concerned.

It's all about who's in office with Pelosi. Her own words reflect that.

Mrs. Pelosi praised the troops, she also said their success was owed

[other one]

Does anyone really believe that Pelosi genuinely feels that Clinton was responsible for strengthening the military?

No, but it might just be where the idea for all the pictures came from.....

[Guest LadyC]

What did those 3,000+ dead people at the Twin Towers have to do with "big oil"?

AMEN!

i could point out the fallicy in about 2/3's of steff's post, but it wouldn't change her mind. i would like to see her answer that question you just posed though!

(unless she would answer it by denying the countless concrete links between al qaeda and iraq!)

reductio ad absurdum, the real question is what did invading Iraq have to do with the "Twin Towers" and the fact that we were supposedly there for WMD.

LOL, i knew you couldn't do it! just goes to prove steff, you've been brainwashed.

[Steff]

LOL, i knew you couldn't do it! just goes to prove steff, you've been brainwashed.

Better explain that one. Just because I believe differently than you doesn't mean I've been "brainwashed".

Has anyone here even closely examined the evidence from The Twin Towers? As a PE in Structural and Mechanical engineering the evidence about the WTC is rather disturbing.

[Guest LadyC]

gee, i thought it was self explanatory. my origional comment was that i'd like to see you answer the question about what 3000+ individuals who were killed on 9/11 have to do with big oil. i said i'd like to see you answer that without denying the countless concrete links between the iraqi regime and al qaeda.

you couldn't do it. instead you responded by questioning what iraq had to do with the twin towers.

maybe i jumped the gun in saying you've been brainwashed, since you didn't actually come right out and deny that iraq was harboring, funding, and training terrorists for al qaeda for years and years prior to 9/11. but your answer sure did seem to imply that you are in denial!

[Guest LCPGUY]

Has anyone here even closely examined the evidence from The Twin Towers? As a PE in Structural and Mechanical engineering the evidence about the WTC is rather disturbing.

Please elaborate.

Thanx,

Bro John

[Guest LadyC]

and for the record, it doesn't matter how disturbing the faults in structural engineering and mechanics were. the FACT is, the towers would still be standing if 747's had not been flown into them intentionally by terrorists.

i see you didn't make mention of any disturbing structural or mechanical errors in the pentagon, or in the white house (which was the third apparent target).

[Steff]

Here is the analysis:

Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.

The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.

The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.

The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.

Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.

Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed. Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.

See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,

The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is

= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)2/32.174

= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).

The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is

= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)2/32.174

= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).

From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.

In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.

So what can be said about the actual impacts?

The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.

The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.

The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was

= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)2/32.174

= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).

This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?

The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was

= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)2/32.174

= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).

This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.

Note that the speed of a projectile determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and the damage localized.

Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the much larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.

For you non engineering types is basically proves that the impacts should not have taken down the WTC, and that there was likely another cause, perhaps a controlled demolition. Since my thesis was on large structures and towers I researched the WTC extensively when getting my degree. I can tell you that a 767 would not have caused the towers to collapse, even with a full load of jet fuel which they did not have.

[Guest LadyC]

hello, it was the sustained heat from the jet fuel burning that the structure could not withstand.

it still would not have occurred without the jets being flown in. unless you're suggesting that it was just coincidence, that our government intentionally demolished those buildings killing those people at the exact same time that the jets were used as missiles?

and the other two jets headed for the whitehouse and the pentagon? you still haven't answered my question. actually, it wasn't MY question, it was one of the johns's questions... either lcpguy or jp1, i don't remember. here, i'll refresh our memories...

gee, i thought it was self explanatory. my origional comment was that i'd like to see you answer the question about what 3000+ individuals who were killed on 9/11 have to do with big oil. i said i'd like to see you answer that without denying the countless concrete links between the iraqi regime and al qaeda.

[Guest LCPGUY]

For you non engineering types is basically proves that the impacts should not have taken down the WTC, and that there was likely another cause, perhaps a controlled demolition. Since my thesis was on large structures and towers I researched the WTC extensively when getting my degree. I can tell you that a 767 would not have caused the towers to collapse, even with a full load of jet fuel which they did not have.

LadyC gave a good reply, IMHO.

So, are you saying that GWB or the Government planned this? Was this another conspiracy theory (fact) like TWA 800??? Or the OK City bombing?

Hmmm... Please come out more in the open.

Although maybe that's a subject for another thread.

Bro John