9/11

[demoniac93]

Momentum is the thing that counts, and 707's higher top speed actually gives it more momentum than the 767.

Momentum = Mass x Velocity
707's top speed: 1009 km/h
707's max takeoff weight: 257,000 lb
707's max momentum: 259,313,000 lb*km/h
767's top speed: 900 km/h
767's max takeoff weight: 315,000 lb
767'x max momentum: 283,500,000 lb*km/h
herp a derp derp

LOL first of all if you use SI use it all the way please, GTFO with your lb's.
Second, you use just the kind of calculations and stats as expected, if you work from the result and want to construct conditions to "prove it".

There are 2 models of Boeing 707, one(707-320B) has a max.takeoff weight of 151 315 kg,
the other  (707-120B) has only 116 575 kg.. you of course chose the one that suited your "proof".

Both have max speed of 1009 km/h (one has 1010 but I neglect it for your advantage here).
So max. momentums are
707-320B  151 315*1009=152 676 835 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              152 676 835      end_of_the_skype_highlighting kg*km/h
707-120B  116 575*1009=117 624 175 kg*km/h  (Veritas used this one)
Quite a difference I would say...

767-200ER -  Max takeoff  175,540kg (387,000lb).  854km/h
Momentum    175,540*854=149 911 160 kg*km/h

So, even at absolute maximum the 7767 has less momentum, but it was only carrying half of the capacity of passengers, and about 40% fuel of the 707s capacity.
Not to mention that the planes would not be travelling at max. speed at such a low altitude (thicker air)

So you may bulls**t many people with your f**ked up calculations, but not the ones who actually check your s**t...

i would say herp a derp derp but i dont know what it means and it sound too gay.

From: September 14, 2010, 08:59:39 am

Apparently he doesn't realize that cause is more important than result in modern science.
Also, he doesn't know what gravity is.

LOOOOL.. Where do you take this kind of s**t from "cause is more important than result" in modern science.. seriously WTF, that is the silliest thing I have heard in a while. It's like saying "eating is more important than s**tting in modern biology".

A creationist talking about gravity also cracks me up. You should be satisfied with "god struck the towers down". STFU seriously...

It's not shit, it's pure facts.
But, as already seen in this thread, no matter how many times you are proven wrong, by any number of people, on multiple accounts, you're simply too damn stupid, or arrogant as fuck, because you always think you know better when the evidence you so worship is firing down like Armageddon on your very own claims.
Besides, if God wanted to strike them down he wouldn't have needed any 767's.

[Veritas]

LOL first of all if you use SI use it all the way please, GTFO with your lb's.

It literally doesn't matter if we're just comparing magnitudes

Second, you use just the kind of calculations and stats as expected, if you work from the result and want to construct conditions to "prove it".
[...]
you of course chose the one that suited your "proof".

Watch as this statement becomes hilarious!

Both have max speed of 1009 km/h (one has 1010 but I neglect it for your advantage here).
So max. momentums are
707-320B  151 315*1009=152 676 835 kg*km/h
707-120B  116 575*1009=117 624 175 kg*km/h  (Veritas used this one)
Quite a difference I would say...

Take note of the fact he's using max speed here

767-200ER -  Max takeoff  175,540kg (387,000lb).  854km/h
Momentum    175,540*854=149 911 160 kg*km/h

Now note that 854 km/h is the cruising speed of the 767-200ER, but the max speed is 914km/h!
175,540*914 = 160 443 560 kg*km/h, greater than the 707-320B.

Not to mention that the planes would not be travelling at max. speed at such a low altitude (thicker air)

Which means the 767 would have the larger momentum compared to a 707 due to being heavier.

So you may bulls**t many people with your f**ked up calculations, but not the ones who actually check your s**t...

lollering

[Mittsu]

haha

[Centurion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkT5yAlmDoA&feature=related

[Shard]

I have very briefly glanced through this entire thread(VERY briefly). My opinion is that it was a conspiracy to give the US government an excuse to attack Iraq. I remember being told that ever since Pearl Harbor there was a document about planning some kind of stunt/attack on US soil to give the US a reason to attack another country. Sounds plausible. Also, after seeing a few videos of the towers going down, and pics, and checking various facts and sources(mainly wiki, a few engineering sites and my engineering teacher), I have come to the conclusion that the aviation fuel on board the planes would not have burned hot enough for the towers to collapse the way they did, which is to say to melt the steel from the top down with fire. Also the tanks weren't even full. I also seem to remember hearing that if the steel did melt, surely it would be weaker on one side from the collision and fire starting there, and toppled over. Also, would the fire have been strong hot enough and lasted long enough for the pools of molten metal at the bottom to form? Weren't there also repairmen in the basement who heard noises like sonic booms or detonations as well.

Edited or not I don't know but I have seen footage of the towers collapsing and puff associated with demolitions coming out of the building below the collapsing parts(I think someone attempted to disprove this earlier?).

So yeah, thats my 2 cents on the matter. Feel free to have a go at it, I'm open to more plausible theories and corrections to my own.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

My advice to you would be to do more than glance briefly at the other posts; some contain some rather important information that you managed to have missed.

[croat1gamer]

And the steel doesnt need to melt, it just has to get hot enough to the point where the forces between the atoms drop to the point where they cant support the weight.
Simply said, they need to get warmed up to the point where they would bend.

And hey, you dont need to blow up the whole tower, just have a lucky hit at the supports to weaken them.

Gravity makes wonders.

[Shard]

I have read back on the thread and seen a good enough counter argument to the conspiracy theories. The melting and buckling of the towers is quite plausible. However I'm still open to knew ideas on the subject. Though the official version is looking more convincing that the one about the demolition. That stuff about momentum is interesting.

And Valis, even without looking at the stats , 20% more mass is significant, as it means 20% more damage to what ever the object is going to hit. Plus, more mass+same speed = more momentum, infact the 767 has less speed.
^
That was really the only thing I wanted to comment on(Trying not to, but I hope I havent gotten confused between mass and weight, and yeah those calculations refer to weight)

This thread has been quite an eyeopener for me. Thank you for not flaming at me when I posted my views.