Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Boeing 767 Keel Beam

payne1000

Compare the frail 767 beam to the beams in the twin towers:

boofhead

It is still made out of aluminum. It is doubled yes but does not have much mass simply because it is part of an airplane and if you look closely you will see that it is stiffened not for the use of a battering ram but to give the fuselage above it a base. To be a keel beam it would have to be more like a real beam, with width, length and depth. That last part it is obviously lacking.

And in any case the keel beam, as it is called, is only present in the area of the wing/fuselage join, and provided to give the landing gear some solid mount. It does not go the length of the airplane fuselage, as it would in a boat.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

The keel beam is like the foundation of a building, most everything is built upon and around it. It supports the cabin floor and cockpit, it supports the wing spar and empenage, it is the base for the landing gear, And it is not made just out of aluminum, it is a high strength alloy.

If what you are trying to imply is that a 130 ton Boeing 767 fully loaded and flying at 400 to 500mph could not penetrate a WTC tower, you'd better think again. Maybe actually watch a video of one doing just that.

boofhead

No it doesn't. It is meant to add strength to the area around the wing/fuselage area because of the cutouts in the fuselage made necessary for the landing gear to move and stow, and to accommodate the center wing box. It is not connected to the wing spar or the cabin floor and most decidedly has nothing to do with the empennage or cockpit. It is a little longer than the chord of the wing and ties it all together. It is used to supply more strength for the gear and a good support for the wing joint, obviously, but its purpose is to add to vertical strength, not horizontal, which is what would be needed if it was intended to provide a tool for battering down the WTC building. And sure it is made of aluminum alloy, but so is the entire airplane, and it is not as strong as steel. The term keel beam is one that Boeing uses because the engineers were from a marine background (or at least the ones who named the parts). It is not going to be any heavier than it needs to be.

And as to the video, it was that very video I was questioning, so why would I now accept it as gospel when facts and science still show it most likely to be bogus? For example you say the fully loaded B767 was traveling at 400 to 500 mph when in fact no B767 can fly that fast at that altitude and it only had a few passengers, was not fully loaded with fuel, so the mass and kinetic energy it possessed was not sufficient for it to do the damage claimed. Certainly not to slide into a steel building virtually intact, as the video showed.

My comments were not meant to raise your blood pressure again, but were in reply to your ping pong cannon information, which I found most entertaining, thank you.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Blade, youŕe absolutely right,

The Bin Laden terrororist attack against the United States on 9/11/2001, was an act of war.

Bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998. The Clinton Administration ignored him at that time.

He attacked two of our embassies in two African countries, without serious repercussions from the Clinton Administration.

On August 7, 1998, over 200 people were killed in nearly simultaneous truck bomb explosions in two East African cities, one at the United States Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the other at the United States Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.

The attacks were linked to the terrorist organization, al-Qaeda, run by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahirit.

He attacked the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, with no serious repercussions from the Clinton
Administration.

On October 12, 2000, Cole was the target of a terrorist attack carried out by al-Qaeda in the Yemeni port of Aden, when two suicide bombers detonated their small boat near the warship, killing 17 U.S. sailors, injuring 39 others, and heavily damaging the ship.

I reiterate: 9/11/2001 was NOT a crime scene. This was a war scene.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

There are thousands of people in the immediate vicinity of southern Manhattan Island who were eyewitnesses when the two planes, one after the other, consecutively entered the two World Trade Buildings on 9/11. Some were office workers in dozens of close by skyscrapers, lining the Manhattan avenues with a clear view.

Others were shoppers entering or leaving the hundreds of stores, restaurants and coffee shops of which Manhattan is composed.

My daughter was one of them.

So all those eyewitnesses were mistaken about what they saw?

They didn´t really see the commercial passenger planes with the clearly defined, clearly visible Airline Logos, crash into those twin steel and glass skyscrapers?

Almost instantly, after the first plane hit on that morning, my daughter called me, and ask that I turn on my TV. The antennas for much of the communication service in lower Manhattan were located on top of the tower that was hit, and they couldn´t access local news.

A few seconds before the second plane hit, one of my daughterś coworkers entered their office on the 36th floor of a building on Park Avenue South, completely shaken,because a large passenger plane, completely off course, had just roared above her, so close to the buildings she thought it would crash.

My daughter, like thousands of others, did see those planes, through the giant windows, actually more like walls of glass, common to many modern office buildings.

It would be half way understandable if someone wanted to tie themselves up in knots denying that it was Santa who actually left the gifts on Christmas Eve, but anyone with the intelligence to sit up and take nourishment should be unable to deny the truth about 9/11.

By claiming such superior, mystic knowledge, that defies all evidence to the contrary, you all have earned the right to wear the label of 9/11 Truth Gnostics.

payne1000

If it was a war scene, why was war not declared against the perpetrators?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUbTe50UUgM

payne1000

Did your daughter hear all the explosions which were seen and heard by so many eyewitnesses?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKfzGt6Fxk

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Had I the authority, it would have been.

The United States should (and could) have overthrow the government (kingdom) of Saudi Arabia and every other Middle Eastern Islamic Autocracy known to be financing terrorism against the west, including Iran; left a contingency force in each country, and come home.

At the time, we could have swept through Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and for good measure Iran (possibly a few others), erased and reset all their priorities, and returned within a year or so. No way would it have taken fifteen years, with no end in sight.

At the time all western minded nations, including Israel, would have applauded us for doing so.

FYI, prominently and redundantly, displaying pictures of your obsessive and puerile hate list, who are all innocent friends (some citizens) of the United States, has no positive influence on the opinions of others...

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

During that frantic hour from the planes attacking the twin towers of the WTC through the buildings collapse, people heard and saw images and sounds they could not have imagined one day prior.

Their minds and memories were frantically searching for any stored frame of reference that could give them a footing, in order to retain their sanity and presence of mind.

There was not one witness present that morning that had previously experienced such total devastation/destruction incorporating the collapse of 110 story buildings and passenger planes laden with jet fuel.

Witnesses to fender bumper auto crashes often get it wrong. How much more is that possible among those who have been witnesses to traumatic crimes?

9/11 surpassed all this.

The fifteen years of study, by architects, engineers and sundry fields of science, in combination with
the permanently recorded films and tapes taken at the time, do not lie.

Anyone who still, in 2016, disagrees with all these findings, insisting they know better, is a stubborn ignoramus with a personal agenda.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Well, you're a hopeless case. Nothing like parroting the 9/11 truther narrative.

The impact velocities were calculated at 240 m/s (536mph) and 200 m/s (447mph) for the South and North Tower respectively. Based on Mass/Velocity mathematics, the initial kinetic energy of the airplane hitting the South Tower is was 3658 MegaJoules, and for impact into the South Tower the kinetic energy was 2540 MegaJoules.

From MIT scientists: Aircraft Impact Damage

boofhead

Not arguing about the energy of the impact, just the outcome. If I throw an egg at a wall I don't expect the wall to open up and absorb the egg. No airplane has ever hit a solid object like a steel skyscraper wall and simply disappeared inside it, yoke and all, like the video shows. Never has happened and I suspect never will.

I don't know the answer, I just know that the official story is wrong or there is some other science to explain it that I am not aware of. The ping pong story does not work for example. The photos of the airplanes do not show a United B767 they show a military airplane with different colors and some belly pod for example. With no remains of any airplane at the site, there should be some of the lighter parts of the airplanes that did not penetrate the building walls, there should be parts of the engines in the rubble (they would have been at the top of the heap and could not have been buried without trace). The security camera footage around the Pentagon was confiscated by the FBI and never released. It would be easy to lay this to rest if you were right, but not so easy if you do not have the proof or are afraid to release it. Going at this from the point of reason and science does not affect you; your mind is made up and you will not consider that your masters have lied to you, perhaps because your whole world would stop if that were to be true. When you cannot convince me and thousands of others, who I admit might very well be totally off the wall, you resort to insults to get your point across. Surely you must realize that this does not lead to open communication and does not change anyone's mind.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

This is why Donald Trump thought the WTC buildings should not have collapsed. He built his buildings better. They were NOT built according to the newer 1968 code which allowed lighter construction of the WTC,with much less concrete, and unfortunately, much less fireproofing, but by the older code.

Following are quotes from: Deputy Fire Chief Vincent Dunn ret.

Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.

The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building,

The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60.

The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers.

The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC.

Builders hailed the New York City building code of 1968 as a good performance code. However, some fire chiefs decried it as a law that substituted frills for real construction safety.

The WTC started construction in the 1970s. And the WTC towers built by the Port Authority of New York did not have to comply with the minimum requirements of the new 1968 performance building code.

If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.

The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports.

To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less.

So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure.

In New York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors.

To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

payne1000

When you make so many false claims, it would help if you supplied sources to back up your misinformation.
Your last sentence implies the steel in the towers was unprotected. All the steel in all three towers had fire protection applied.