[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
RedBean I think you took my post the worng way. I AM ON YOUR SIDE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a dog in this fight, I mistakenly popped in here to share some off-the-cuff FWIW on the planes being discussed, and apparently I wandered into the section where all the freaking loons and kooks are segragated, and I don't mean you.

[ QUOTE ]

But when you are having a debate about what is fact or fiction you can't just say "FWIW, a dry (empty) 707 weighs about 100,000lbs. Max weight is about 250,000lbs." because it depends on which version of 707 your talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, I was talking about the 707 most likely to be flown commercially at the time they where designing the WTC.

[ QUOTE ]
If you know that the designers were using the specs for a 707-120 I stand corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what's been printed about them planning for a low-speed nudge from a 707 circa the planning phase in '60/'61, it's just my best guess, off the cuff. I didn't realize people were actually seriously debating this as if it wasn't the cause of the collapse. I have since read through the thread and had to stop and go call my parents and thank them for me being normal.

[ QUOTE ]

It is plain to the whole world ( apart from the 9/11 Conspiracies nuts ) that they couldn't take a that hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. Either way or either, 707, 767, or 777, I'd have to say the buildings performed admirably, most likely even surpassing expectations. They stayed up for an hour after impact, correct? That's precious times and potentially thousands of lives saved.

I doubt anyone expected it to be designed for the plane to just bounce off, and much like a mangled crumple bumper that is off no more use, it did it's job and saved lives.