Kevin Ryan: What is 9/11 Truth? - The First Steps

[reprehensor]

What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps
by Kevin Ryan

Lately there has been much written and said about the emergence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Unfortunately, most of this ignores an important question – What exactly is “9/11 Truth”? The simple answer is twofold. The first truth about 9/11 that no one can argue with is that the official story of what happened has been used to “change everything”, meaning it has redefined all government priorities and international relations, and therefore the entire future of society. The second, more troubling truth about 9/11 is that the official story is false. Many people still don’t see this second truth clearly, however, so we must help them look again. But it’s important to realize that 9/11 Truth is not just about promoting new conspiracy theories, it’s more fundamentally about questioning the one we’ve been given.

The official story of September 11th is comprised of two reports. The first of these, the 9/11 Commission Report, gives the government’s overall version of what happened that day and why. However, it is somewhat misleading to call this report the “official story” as the Commission’s executive director and de facto member of the Bush Administration, Philip Zelikow, controlled the entire investigation as well as the writing of the report. Most of the 9/11 Commission members were simply there to present an appearance of unanimity. Therefore the official story is not representative of work done by the US government as a whole, but is largely the view of the Bush Administration.

The Commission’s story has been shown to be entirely false due to lies of omission and distortion, and one significant event their report omitted entirely was the collapse of WTC 7. They left explanation for this disaster, and the collapse of the towers, to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for publication as the second half of the official story, the NIST WTC report. This second report is a direct product of the Bush Administration, with cabinet member Carlos Gutierrez’ name emblazoned on page one. Of course NIST itself is a government agency whose directors are also Presidential appointees. Those relying on this report always fail to note the fact that the leaders of NIST’s WTC investigation were appointed directly by George W. Bush.

This fact should remind us that the Bush Administration has been criticized heavily for their disdain of science. The House Committee on Government Reform found “numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” A group of leading scientists, now including 49 Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academies, has said that the Bush Administration engages in “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” ...

Continued…
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[wildbilln864]

1. excellent post reprehensor!

It's too bad this can't be in the GD forum instead of being censored.

[Carefulplease]

2. Boeing 767 vs 707.

From Kevin Ryan's article:

To begin with, everyone knows that no tall steel framed buildings have ever collapsed from fire, yet we’re told that the first three instances of this occurred all on the same day

Whoever said that? Aren't we told that large aircrafts (or debris from collapsing towers) hit them also?

Similarly, there is no precedent in which a building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition was not a demolition, and again we have three.

Experts do not think they exhibited "all the characteristics" of controlled demolition. Several among these are conspicuously lacking.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

We also know that the building’s structural engineer, John Skilling, considered airliner impacts and the resulting jet fuel fires in his design, and assured us “the building structure would still be there.

The scenario the designers envisaged was the impact of a Boeing 707 lost in fog on a landing course. They did not envisage the impact with a Boeing 767 hitting at cruise speed. The kinetic energy, and thus the structural damage incurred by the structure, was thus at least 6 times larger than expected.

[petgoat]

3. ...

Aren't we told that large aircrafts (or debris from collapsing towers) hit them also?

According to NIST, the structural damage to the towers didn't bring
them down, and the fires wouldn't have brought them down except for
the degradation to the fireproofing.

The kinetic energy, and thus the structural damage incurred by the
structure, was thus at least 6 times larger than expected.

Thomas Eagar likened the impacts to "a bullet hitting a tree."

IOW, negligible.

Experts do not think they exhibited "all the characteristics" of
controlled demolition

The only one lackng that I see is the assertion that CD initiates at
the bottom. Obviously in this case if you initiated a symmetrical
collapse near the top, it would take the towers down floor by floor
by floor in their own footprints. Therefore the fact that the collapse
did not begn from the bottom is in no way inconsistent with CD.

Dr. Van Romero said it looked just like CD. That's because it did.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quickesst]

7. "Sounds like Freepertalk"

!:rofl: What's next? WE DON'T COTTON TO YOUR KIND 'ROUND HEAH! I love the smell of desperation in the morning. Thanks.
quickesst


ps: Geez Petgoat, how in the wide wide world of sports are you going to be able to handle such an onslaught of truth, justice, and the Merkin Way?

[Grateful for Hope]

8. WE DON'T COTTON TO YOUR KIND 'ROUND HEAH!

Thank you for this morning laugh!

:rofl:

[mirandapriestly]

23. Heh heh I saw that last night

"smell the desperation" - that always goes through my mind when I read their posts.

[Grateful for Hope]

30. This also cracked me up

"truth, justice, and the Merkin Way?".

LOL!

[mirandapriestly]

32. ewwwww

[Carefulplease]

9. Neither the impact damage not the fires...

According to NIST, the structural damage to the towers didn't bring them down, and the fires wouldn't have brought them down except for the degradation to the fireproofing.

Still according to NIST, the combined effect of both brought them down.

Dr. Van Romero talked with structural engineers and came to the conclusion that fire and aircraft impact was sufficient to bring the Twin Towers down.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. When is NIST going to release their report on WTC #7? n/t

[mrgerbik]

14. I like how this conclusion

HAS to be accepted as the bona-fide truth, even with all the questions that are left unanswered in it's wake. It would seem to me that if there are so many people weary of this line of query, why isn't there another proper investigation as to quell this distrust? I know it is somewhat naive to ask this but it seems that the only thing the official line does is fan the fires of suspicion instead of putting them out.

[Carefulplease]

19. Have a look at the NIST report.

It bears very little resemblance with what Kevin Ryan says of it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim2.pdf

[hack89]

20. But how would a new investigation work?

How do you conduct a credible investigation that does not involve all those individuals and organizations that you insist were part of the plot or coverup to start with? How do you keep the politicians out of it since this has to be a government investigation?

[Carefulplease]

24. There are alternatives...

That could be a team of independent artists, theologians and philosophers led by Judy Wood. They would use nano-thermite grenades to blow up 110 billiard balls stacked in a tube.

[mrgerbik]

26. who inisits they were part of the cover up n/t

[hack89]

40. So the FBI, NIST

and other defenders of the official story would be allowed to partcipate?

[mrgerbik]

44. under careful scrutiny

maybe with an extremely unbiased panel. Of course, with full public participation.

[hack89]

47. Who picks an "unbiased panel" ?

everyone has a bias.

[petgoat]

25. When Dr. Romero saw the burning towers on TV, he was on his way

to a meeting at an office near the Pentagon to discuss
defense-funded research at New Mexico Tech.

Of course Dr. Romero's change of opinion has nothing to
do with his perception that his original opinion was very
unpopular with the people whose favor he was trying to
to curry.

And has nothing to do with the fact that New Mexico Tech
subsequently received such sizable federal grants
that Dr. Romero was named as one of the top lobbyists in 2003.

“From his perch 2,000 miles outside of the Beltway, this physics Ph.D. understands exactly how Washington works,” the article states. “A major chunk of his job involves lobbying for federal government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero is a superstar.”

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2003/18dec01.html

[KJF]

6. Working

You wrote:
"The kinetic energy, and thus the structural damage incurred by the structure, was thus at least 6 times larger than expected."
Can I see the working for that please?

[hack89]

12. Since velocity is a squared value in the KE equation ..

it seems that a significant increase in speed would result in an exponential increase in energy. If in fact we are comparing a 707 at an approach speed of 200 knots to a 767 at over 500 knots then logically the statement seems reasonable.

[Carefulplease]

21. In that case 200->500 speed yields a 6.25 increase in kinetic energy.

[KJF]

35. OK, so let's take a look at the structure

NIST's base case model (which I'm happy to go with for now) showed that the impacts would have reduced the towers' gravity load-carrying capacity by 15%. Six times less than this is 2.5%. You're saying a 707 would only have reduced the plane's gravity load-carrying capacity by 2.5%? Right? How do you break that down in terms of the structure - are you saying it would only sever 12 perimeter columns and the rest of the plane would bounce off or be diced by the perimeter?

Where did you get the speed of 500 knots from?

[Carefulplease]

15. Kinetic energy of the aircrafts...

The WTC towers were designed to whithstand the impact of a Boeing 707-320, the largest commercial aircraft of the day, that would have been lost in fog, attempting to land.

Speed of 707 on landing course: 180mph = 80.5m/s
Assumed mass of 707: 119000kg (FEMA report)
Speed of 767 impacting WTC1: 443mph = 198m/s
Speed of 767 impacting WTC2: 546mph = 244m/s
Assumed mass of those aircrafts: 128000kg (NIST report)(*)

Kinetic energy of 707: mv^2 = 119000*80.5^2J = 765MJ
Kinetic energy of 767 impacting WTC1: mv^2 = 128000kg*198^2J = 5018MJ
Kinetic energy of 767 impacting WTC2: mv^2 = 128000kg*244^2J = 7620MJ

So, the impacts were 6.6 and 10.0 times more energetic than what the towers were designed to withstand. Yet they stood, for a while.

(5000MJ is the energy released by slightly more than 1 ton of TNT)

(*) The second aircraft had a bit more cargo and a bit less fuel.

[mrgerbik]

22. where is a link to

the idea that the designers had a 707 that would have been lost in fog, attempting to land in mind when designing the buildings?

[Carefulplease]

27. Here you are...

Reflections on the World Trade Center

Leslie E. Robertson

The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/BridgePrintView/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

[mrgerbik]

31. thanks n/t

[mrgerbik]

43. this guy has NWO written all over him n/t

[AZCat]

45. NWO?

Please explain...

[mrgerbik]

46. new world order

[KJF]

36. Thanks for the working

I have a couple of observations

Plane speed
MIT found different figures for the aircrafts' speeds.
Here's the MIT article about it:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
Kausel finds that American 11 was going at 429 mph and and United 503 mph.

NIST's complex motion analyses found similar speeds. You can find it here starting on page 153 (267 of the pdf.):
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf
The complex motion analyses found that American 11 was going at 435 mph and United 175 at 497 mph.

However, I doubt this is going to make that much of a difference.

Anyway, I asked Hack about this, but I'd like to ask you too. NIST's base case (which I'm willing to go with for now) showed that the two planes would have reduced each tower's gravity load-bearing capacity by 15%. So you're saying that the 707 would have done 1/6 of this damage, i.e. it would have reduced a tower's gravity load-bearing capacity by 2.5%? Right? I'd just like to ask you to give me an idea of what sort of structural damage you think the 707 would have caused. For example, do you think it would have severed 12 of the perimeter columns, or do you think it would have done less damage to the perimeter and some to the core, or what?

[Carefulplease]

41. See the composite estimates on p.158 (NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf)

They represent weighed averages of the data from several analysis. 443mph+-30 and 542mph+-24. They are closer to the figures I used (from the main report.)

I don't think we could assume a linear relationship between kinetic energy and the amount of load-bearing destruction. It takes less energy to buckle columns that it does to severe them. However, buckled columns could be as good as severed. Once a engine or landing gear has gone all the way through the core and exit wall, it's having more or less kinetic energy remaining makes little difference. The more or less asymmetrical nature of the damage is very significant. And so on.

[KJF]

48. That's not what you wrote originally

In fact you've changed your position 180 degrees. In post 2 you wrote:
"The kinetic energy, and thus the structural damage incurred by the structure, was thus at least 6 times larger than expected."

But in post 41 you wrote:
"I don't think we could assume a linear relationship between kinetic energy and the amount of load-bearing destruction."

They're opposites. I agree with the second, but not the first. So, how much damage are you saying a 707 would have done?

RE NIST's numbers: I have some doubts about them. It looks like they took high-end estimates and bumped them up. Show me another scientist who endorses NIST's simple motion analysis and I'll consider it.

Buckled columns aren't "as good as severed".

You wrote:
"Once a engine or landing gear has gone all the way through the core and exit wall, it's having more or less kinetic energy remaining makes little difference."
I don't recall any engine going "all the way through the core and exit wall". Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me.

[Carefulplease]

49. Clarifications...

In fact you've changed your position 180 degrees. In post 2 you wrote:
"The kinetic energy, and thus the structural damage incurred by the structure, was thus at least 6 times larger than expected."

Indeed, that statement of mine was very lousy. I should have said: The kinetic energy was at least 6 times larger than the kinetic energy released (and available) in the sort of impact that the towers were designed to survive. The structural damage was very much greater than expected.

One can not say that some type of damage A is 6 times larger that some other type damage B, for damage does not have a natural numerical unit. It's a qualitative concept. I was lousy.

NIST did not "bump up an high end estimate". They prepared several data sets that covered some reasonable uncertainty range. They discovered that one of these sets produced simulation results that were more empirically adequate even before they ran the simulations that lead to collapse initiation.

Yes, even slightly buckled columns are as good as severed.
http://www3.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

Regarding the engine and landing gear exits, you will find some photographs in both the FEMA and the NIST(main) reports, and also here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session3/3Fahim2.pdf

[KJF]

51. Thanks for the clarification

You wrote:
"The structural damage was very much greater than expected."
I find that statement too vague to be meaningful. NIST's base case says 15% of each tower's gravity load-bearing structure was taken away by the impacts. How much are you saying a Boeing 707 would take away?

You wrote:
"NIST did not "bump up an high end estimate"."
I'm saying that's exactly what they did. For example, for United 175's speed they did a complex motion analysis and came up with a figure similar to MIT's (about 500 mph), but they didn't like that, so they did another analysis and threw the first one away (even though it was supported by MIT). Then they took this figure - the high-end estimate of 542 - and bumped it up to 570 mph, the speed they used in their severe case. If that's not "bumping up a high-end estimate" then what is?

You wrote:
"They discovered that one of these sets produced simulation results that were more empirically adequate even before they ran the simulations that lead to collapse initiation."
You're going to have to explain that one again. How can they have discovered that one of the sets "produced simulation results that were more empirically adequate" before they even ran the simulations? How can they have the results of the simulations even before they ran them?

You wrote "even slightly buckled columns are as good as severed" and then you linked to Bazant and Zhou's slipshod paper. I'm not going to go through the whole thing again just to find a couple of paragraphs you think support your position. if you want to use them, you find them.

There's no engine that went "all the way through the core and exit wall". If you want to claim there was, please specify which engine.

[Carefulplease]

56. More clarifications...

You wrote:
"The structural damage was very much greater than expected."
I find that statement too vague to be meaningful. NIST's base case says 15% of each tower's gravity load-bearing structure was taken away by the impacts. How much are you saying a Boeing 707 would take away?

Without producing a simulation, there is no way to tell. Remember that I am arguing against people who say that since the towers were designed to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 (they often say "from a 767"), then they out also to have survived 9/11. They take account neither of the impact speeds nor of the effects from the fires. Don't you agree that a six-to-tenfold increase in kinetic energy ought to be significant and not ignored?

You wrote:
"NIST did not "bump up an high end estimate"."
I'm saying that's exactly what they did. For example, for United 175's speed they did a complex motion analysis and came up with a figure similar to MIT's (about 500 mph), but they didn't like that, so they did another analysis and threw the first one away (even though it was supported by MIT). Then they took this figure - the high-end estimate of 542 - and bumped it up to 570 mph, the speed they used in their severe case. If that's not "bumping up a high-end estimate" then what is?

The complex motion analysis was used to establish the aircraft trajectory while using the data from many low quality videos taken from many perspectives. It yielded quite large errors for the speed estimated. The result from this analysis wasn't "thrown away". It was used as an input for the production of the simplified analysis that was performed with the videos that had better resolution. The simplified *and* complex analysis for United 175 yielded the estimates: 573mph +- 55, 556 +- 27, 535 +- 23, 523 +-31, 557 +-53. Compounding these they got the "best estimate speed" of 542mph +-24. This is a datum that NIST derived from video data alone. Their impact model predicted *less* structural damage than did the earlier studies of either MIT's of Weidlinger Assiciates's

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm
p.153--, p.291--

You wrote:
"They discovered that one of these sets produced simulation results that were more empirically adequate even before they ran the simulations that lead to collapse initiation."
You're going to have to explain that one again. How can they have discovered that one of the sets "produced simulation results that were more empirically adequate" before they even ran the simulations? How can they have the results of the simulations even before they ran them?

Because they performed several distinct simulations. (1) One concerned the baseline structural response and the aircraft impact analysis. (2) The reconstruction of the fires uses (1) as an input. (3) The simulation of the structural fire response and collapse initiation sequence used both (1) and (2) as inputs.

(1) http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-2index.htm
(2) http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm
(2) http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-6index.htm

See the summaries on pages 179 and 245:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf

The severe structural damage and fire history data sets best matched observed structural behavior of component subsystems (and observation of fire progressions) before the global model simulation that predicted collapse was run.

You wrote "even slightly buckled columns are as good as severed" and then you linked to Bazant and Zhou's slipshod paper. I'm not going to go through the whole thing again just to find a couple of paragraphs you think support your position. if you want to use them, you find them.

One relevant passage is in the first page: "This leads to creep buckling of columns (e.g., Bazant and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9), which consequently lose their load carrying capacity (stage 2)." (my emphasis)

Buckling just is one failure mode among others. Another one for core columns is splice disconnection.

Creep is a plastic deformation. Columns that are permanently buckled (because of overloading or of lateral impact) have been deformed past the elastic range. One the one hand, they are shortened (due to geometry change and creep) and they would thus have transferred much of their load to other parts of the structure. On the other hand, if their design load were transferred back to them, they wouldn't bear it compressively to any significant extent. Axially applied forces deflect them further. They just buckle more. Bazant provides more detailed calculations of the strain energy capacity (how much work is required to deflect them) of buckled columns in a 2006 paper if you care to look.

There's no engine that went "all the way through the core and exit wall". If you want to claim there was, please specify which engine.

You are quoting me out of context. I was discussing hypothetical scenarios (707, 767, variable speeds, etc.) regarding the linear relationship of kinetic energy and damage. This wan in answering your query about such hypotheticals. However, an heavy engine part did exit WTC2. Whatever kinetic energy it still possessed couldn't do additional damage. That was my point regarding nonlinearity.

See p.287 in NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf and also this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[KJF]

61. This and that

You write:
"Without producing a simulation, there is no way to tell" how much damage the 707 would have caused.
I don't think so. I think you can give me a ballpark figure. You seem to be indicating it was between 2.5% and 15% of the gravity load-bearing structure. If that's the case, then the range you have to go at isn't very large.

You write that "low quality videos" were used for the complex motion analysis, but that the videos for the simplified motion analysis had "better resolution". However, the same set of videos was used for each type of analysis.

You wrote "The simplified *and* complex analysis for United 175 yielded the estimates: 573mph +- 55, 556 +- 27, 535 +- 23, 523 +-31, 557 +-53. Compounding these they got the "best estimate speed" of 542mph +-24."
That's not true. NIST writes that the complex motion analysis "indicated the UAL 175 aircraft impact speed to be about 497 mph." (p. 155/269) This value was not used in the final calculation you cite - they threw it away. MIT confirmed the complex motion analysis, has anyone ever independently confirmed the simplified motion analysis?

You wrote: "The severe structural damage and fire history data sets best matched observed structural behavior of component subsystems (and observation of fire progressions) before the global model simulation that predicted collapse was run."
Translated into English: fairly early on they realised that if they used the real numbers in the base case, the towers weren't going to fall down in the model, so they tweaked it a lot, for example by adding 200 tons of fictional combustibles to the fire floors. After much effort, they persuaded the model towers to collapse. If Steven Jones re-ran the model and took away 200 tons of combustibles that were actually in the buildings from the fire floors and the towers didn't collapse, but tweaked the fires so they moved in the model the way they did in reality, would that be good science?

Re buckling: I'm saying a buckled column can still carry some (not all!) of its weight. The amount it can carry depends on how badly buckled it is. You appear to be saying that when a column first starts to buckle, it loses all of it's load-carrying capacity immediately. Is this right, or do you mean something else?

Re engines: we're agreed then - no engine passed through the core and then the outer wall.

btw, if you don't buy it, what were you doing in Chicago?

[mrgerbik]

11. 707 vs 767

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.

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 the 707 is faster.

In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.

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.

[hack89]

13. So recalculate the 707 KE using approach speed ...

and then you can answer the real question instead of your strawman.

[mrgerbik]

16. what is the approach speed? n/t

[hack89]

17. 155 kts nt

[Carefulplease]

18. See message #15.

[flyarm]

34. NOW I AM NOT A PILOT BUT A RETIRED FLT CREW THAT FLEW THE

707 ..that aircraft was retired because it was a fuel guzzeler..it used a shit load of fuel..

it was also a long haul aircraft..it also had four (4) ENGINES ..

NOT TWO AS A 767 HAS

MAYBE A PILOT HERE could tell us how much difference there would be between the two aircraft..in weights will full fuel load..



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx767

Powerplants

767-200 - Two 213.5kN (48,000lb) Pratt & Whitney JT9D7R4D turbofans, or 222.4kN (50,000lb) PW4050s, or 233.5kN (52,500lb) General Electric CF680C2B2s. 767-200ER - Two PW4050s (as above), or 231kN (52,000lb) PW4052s, or 252.4kN (56,750lb) PW4056s, or 257.7kN (57,900lb) CF680C2B4Fs.

Performance

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt). Range of basic aircraft with JT9Ds 5855km (3160nm), medium range version with CF6s 7135km (3850nm). 767-200ER - Speeds same. Range with PW4056s 12,269km (6625nm), with CF6s 12,352km (6670nm).

Weights

767-200 - Empty with JT9Ds 74,752kg (164,800lb), with CF6s 74,344kg (163,900lb). Operating empty with JT9Ds 80,920kg (178,400lb), with CF6s 80,510kg (177,500lb). Max takeoff 136,078kg (300,000lb), medium range max takeoff 142,881kg (315,000lb). 767-200ER - Empty with PW4056s 76,566kg (168,800lb), with CF680C2B4s 76,476kg (168,600lb), operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb), with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb). Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb).

Dimensions

Wing span 47.57m (156ft 1in), length 48.51m (159ft 2in), height 15.85m (52ft 0in). Wing area 283.3m2 (3050sq ft).

Capacity

Flightcrew of two, or optionally three. Typical two class seating for 18 premium and 198 economy class pax. Max seating for 290 at eight abreast and 76cm (30in) pitch. Underfloor cargo holds can accommodate up to 22 LD2 containers.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx707

Powerplants

707-120B - Four 75.6kN (17,000lb) Pratt & Whitney JT3D-1 turbofans.
707-320B - Four 80kN (18,000lb) JT3D-3s or four 84.4kN (19,000lb) JT3D-7s.

Performance

707-120B - Max speed 1010km/h (545kt), max cruising speed 1000km/h (540kt), economical cruising speed 897km/h (484kt). Range with max payload 6820km (3680nm), range with max fuel 8485km (4580nm).
707-320B - Max speed 1009km/h (545kt), max cruising speed 974km/h (525kt), long range cruising speed 885km/h (478kt). Range with max passengers 6920km (3735nm), range with max fuel and 147 passengers 9265km (5000nm).

Weights

707-120B - Operating empty 55,589kg (122,533lb), max takeoff 116,575kg (257,000lb).
707-320B - Empty 66,406kg (146,400lb), max takeoff 151,315kg (333,600lb).

Dimensions

707-120B - Wing span 39.90m (130ft 10in), length 44.07m (144ft 6in), height 12.94m (42ft 5in). Wing area 226.3m2 (2433sq ft).
707-320B - Wing span 44.42m (145ft 9in), length 46.61m (152ft 11in), height 12.93m (42ft 5in). Wing area 283m2 (3050sq ft).

Capacity

Flightcrew of three or four.
707-120 max seating for 179, or 110 in two classes (44 first and 66 economy).
707-320B - Max seating for 219, or 189 single class at 81cm (32in) pitch, or 147 in two classes.
Convertible or freighter versions - 13 A type containers.

Production

Production of commercial 707s ended in 1978 after 878 had been built. Limited production of military variants continued until 1990. Approximately 130 remain in commercial service.


fly

[rman]

65. WTC7 is the odd one out -

"To begin with, everyone knows that no tall steel framed buildings have ever collapsed from fire, yet we’re told that the first three instances of this occurred all on the same day"

"Whoever said that? Aren't we told that large aircrafts (or debris from collapsing towers) hit them also?"

Are you saying debris from collapsing towers has kinetic energy similar to that of a 767 crashing into a building? Is there any concrete evidence (photos, video) that debris caused damage to WTC7 significant enough to cause it to collapse? Even if it did, it would be to one side of the building - so why did the building collapse in almost perfect symmetry, with the collapse starting at ground level? Why is it that there's no official explanation for the collapse of WTC7?

WTC7 was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed into its own footprint (which is characteristic of controlled demolition) just like the towers. No amount of kinetic energy involved in a 767 crashing into a building explains that.

[KJF]

5. Thanks for posting this

There was the odd problem (can we please drop the "10 seconds"?), but it was well worth reading. I was amazed by the bit about the shotgun - I'd always wondered how they did that.

[petgoat]

28. A shotgun and a plywood box! nt

[Carefulplease]

42. That's a modified shotgun...

...shooting debris at lower speeds, such as the speed of the aircraft or the reduced speed of the debris once the entry wall had been breached.

What's the problem with the plywood? Ryan seems to be grasping at straws, don't you think?

[petgoat]

50. Grasping at straws? Not at all. I saw the presentation Ryan gave at

Chicago. I thought it was very solid, much better than I expected.

Why couldn't they use steel? Does fireproofing stick to plywood in the same way? Sloppy.

[Carefulplease]

52. It is Ryan who is sloppy...

Edited for grammar.

"Not at all. I saw the presentation Ryan gave at
Chicago. I thought it was very solid, much better than I expected.

Why couldn't they use steel? Does fireproofing stick to plywood in the same way? Sloppy."

It is Ryan who is sloppy. I also saw that presentation. It is clear that Ryan's scornful description seemed meant to give the impression that plywood sheets were shot at. That is the impression we both got. The truth is: foam insulated *steel plates* were shot at. The plywood box was just meant to protect the equipment and experimenters from rebounding debris.

You can not evaluate the solidity of Ryan's presentation if you do not check the source documents he is attempting to discredit.

[KJF]

53. Ryan writes:

"Their test for fireproofing loss, never inserted in the draft reports, involved shooting a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at non-representative samples in a plywood box." (p. 2)

I don't know what he said in Chicago, but in the article the samples are in the box, the samples aren't the box.

I also note that in the tests NIST used SFRM called BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F (page 263/315 of the .pdf). However, whilst some of the impact floors were actually protected with BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F, most of them were protected with BLAZE-SHIELD II:
"The Port Authority stated that: "The entire impact zone for Tower 1 (92-99) was upgraded with 1.5" spray-on fireproofing. Only the 78th floor was upgraded with the 1.5" spray-on fireproofing within the impact zone in Tower 2 (78-84). The Port Authority provided information from Construction Audit Reports regarding the characteristics of SFRM that was upgraded as of 2000 in the aircraft impacted regions of the WTC towers. The provided test reports state that the material used for the upgrade was BLAZE-SHIELD II." (p. 42/94)

NIST helpfully points out that, "BLAZE-SHIELD II is about 20 percent denser and has about 20 percent higher adhesive/cohesive strength compared to BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F". (p. 83/135).

So, the SFRM that NIST tested was worse than that actually applied on most of the impact floors. If you wanted to honestly determine the properties of the SFRM in the towers, would you not test the actual type of SFRM applied on most of the impact floors? Or would you try to fudge the results by testing something worse?

btw, I also see that for the purposes of its calculations NIST pretended that the planes only hit 10 floors, instead of the 14 they actually hit. This allowed them to redistribute the debris from floors 92 and 99 in the North Tower and 78 and 84 in the South Tower and have them strip off SFRM in the central impact floors to make them weaker. Everywhere I look, it just gets worse.

[petgoat]

55. Ryan mentioned the upgraded fireproofing, and the fact that

NIST had not met that standard, in his talk.

I'm sure that the misunderstanding of the plywood box
was my own, an artifact of a rather dry talk and my
late hours (though I'm surprised that he mentioned it
at all if it was just a test backstop.)

You are to be commended, Kevin, for actually reading the
NIST report. When I learned that they did not cover the
actual collapse, but only the collapse initiation, and
when I saw this chart of simulated empirical data, and learned
that none of their core steel samples show heating above 250
degrees I got so mad I knew that reading it would be a waste
of time for me.

[Carefulplease]

59. Empirical science...

It's already been pointed out to you that this chart is a *confrontation* of simulation results (floor area) with empirical data (perimeter windows video/photographic observations). How shocking that NIST would test their fire models against actual observation.

[petgoat]

62. Empschmirical Hogwash

So now you're claiming that photographic observations of alleged
column bowing (that may be optical distortions due to heat)
allow NIST to model exactly where a temperature gradient of 700
degrees C. across eight feet in the core.

That's not science; that's claimed clairvoyance.

[Carefulplease]

63. What are you talking about?

Who said anything about temperature gradients and column bowing? The observations are direct observations of internal fires (when pictures provide an horizontal line of sight), external flaming, broken windows, and such things.) Since you are so fond of posting this picture and analyzing it (making wild guesses as to its significance) couldn't you, just once, look into the relevant sub-report and read the legend for the color code?

[petgoat]

64. I'm talking about "Empirical Science," the topic of your post.

Which the NIST graphic, as you point out, is not.

But it sure looks like they spread out an array of
thermocouples on 8" centers, doesn't it?

[Carefulplease]

66. The graphic displays both empirical and simulation data.

It does not look to me like they put thermocouple grids on the WTC burning floors. It really looks just like what they describe it to be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=101226&mesg_id=102218

[petgoat]

67. The data are too specific for a simulation.

This is a simulation;



This is not:




The NIST graphic contains dishonest specificity

[Carefulplease]

68. Simulations and simulations...

NIST produced real life fire tests of single workstations.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5C.pdf

They also constructed (real life) models of multiple workstations burning in a compartment.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5E.pdf

This allowed them to calibrate certain parameters for the fire dynamics simulations run on a computer. They did not perform real life simulations of the fires on multi-floor full scale models of the WTC towers.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5F.pdf

The results of these simulation presented in graphical form are fine grained because a fluid dynamics model is used to model the flow of air and combustion gases. The fires and gases and radiation densities vary in a continuous fashion. They produce continuous temperature distributions. The details presented are the details of ceiling air temperatures output by the FDS. This is matched to the observed behavior of fires on the perimeter so as to further validate the global fire models and adjust uncertain parameter values.

The visual evidence is presented here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf

It is summarized in graphical form here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_AppxD-G.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_AppxH-M.pdf

[Carefulplease]

58. Blaze-shield...

I also note that in the tests NIST used SFRM called BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F (page 263/315 of the .pdf). However, whilst some of the impact floors were actually protected with BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F, most of them were protected with BLAZE-SHIELD II

This is true only of the insulation on the floor trusses. The insulation on planar elements (perimeter and core columns) wasn't upgraded. The access was too difficult.

NIST helpfully points out that, "BLAZE-SHIELD II is about 20 percent denser and has about 20 percent higher adhesive/cohesive strength compared to BLAZE-SHIELD DC/F

The increase in density exactly offsets the increase in cohesive strength. In the case of flat surfaces, the acceleration required to dislodge the insulation depends on inertial forces. These are directly proportional to both thickness and density. The force required is proportional to bond strength. In the case of encased bars, the calculation is more complex, but the result is very nearly the same. See the analysis for both cases on pp. 109-111 and the table on p.112

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf

So, the SFRM that NIST tested was worse than that actually applied on most of the impact floors. If you wanted to honestly determine the properties of the SFRM in the towers, would you not test the actual type of SFRM applied on most of the impact floors? Or would you try to fudge the results by testing something worse?

The insulation on the columns was not upgraded. Also, the reason they performed extensive tests (not just impact tests) using DC/F insulation is the fact that they had insufficient data on hand already. The Port Authority also provided measurements of in-place bond strength for the floors that were upgraded (with Blaze-Shield II).

btw, I also see that for the purposes of its calculations NIST pretended that the planes only hit 10 floors, instead of the 14 they actually hit. This allowed them to redistribute the debris from floors 92 and 99 in the North Tower and 78 and 84 in the South Tower and have them strip off SFRM in the central impact floors to make them weaker. Everywhere I look, it just gets worse.

No, they did not redistribute the debris. The debris field density and trajectory was an output from the detailed finite-element aircraft impact simulation. They just ignored the minimal damage to the insulation on floors that just were impacted by wing tips. The assumptions about insulation damage for the global model are spelled out on pp. 129 and following of

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

[KJF]

60. I love you guys...

... you admit that they used the wrong type of SFRM, but you then claim it makes no difference. If Steven Jones repeated the test with higher grade SFRM than was actually installed on 9/11 and found it didn't fall off, would you accept that as accurate, or would you insist the test be repeated with the right type of SFRM?

NIST tested what would have happened to BLAZE-SHIELD 2 on trusses an average of 75 feet away (and in some case over 150 feet away) by firing buckshot at BLAZE SHIELD DC/F on plates a maximum of 29.5 feet.

I can suggest at least three improvements to this:
(1) Use the type of steel elements actually in place on 9/11 instead of plates;
(2) Use the right type of SFRM;
(3) Use the right range.

And I'm not too sure about the buckshot. Is there any independent confirmation tht buckshot is a suitable means of testing aircraft impact?

"The insulation on the columns was not upgraded."
I checked, you may well be right. How about a page reference next time?

"No, they did not redistribute the debris."
Maybe, maybe not. If you think there's a paragraph that supports your position, then post it.

[mrgerbik]

29. a little off topic, but creepy

I was trolling google and stumbeled upon this forum, posted in 2000. I'm not saying anything, just that it's kinda creepy...

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/336291/4/

[mirandapriestly]

33. weird, I'm sure it's coincidence,. but

It looks like someone was setting up a case for the towers being destroyed by aircraft to be read by people after the fact.

[Jazz2006]

37. Now, that's spooky. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Amazing, these guys on a forum

could imagine airplanes hit buildings, but the National Security Advisor, Condi Rice, claimed that no one could have ever imagined such a thing.

[HuskerDU]

54. Plenty of American sailors from WWII could've told

Condi about kamikazees. My grandpa was one of 'em.

'Lets see, terrorists hijack airplanes and want to attack America. Now what in the world would they do with the planes?'

[petgoat]

57. You mean they didn't want to fly to Cuba?

The French disrupted hijackers who meant to fly an airliner
into Eiffel Tower in 1994.

Al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot to fly hijacked airliners into
Sears Tower, WTC, the Pentagon, and the TransAmerica Pyramid
was known in 1995.

The airspace over the Atlanta Olympic Games was closed in 1996.

[Artdyst]

39. Thanks. The only plausible explanation is that this was done in

anticipation of the real thing. The fact that conspiracy theorists who support Bush will say it's just a coincidence won't persuade informed people. Neither will an "they were just speculating. after all, it IS a site having to do with the grim business of airplanes and flying".