Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Did you guys know a Boeing 707 is actually faster than Boeing 767 because it weighs slightly less?

Now according to these stats on this site, the Boeing 767 only slighly beats out the 707 in the stats, and comes up short in the speed test. So how is it logical that several 707s still cannot do what 1 Boeing 767 cannot do?

the stats:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/boeing_7...

Update:

@Anton: that's for the Pentagon

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    "IF" you really care........

    Investigate why Sandy Berger Stole and Destroyed Classified Documents to Protect Bill Clinton from the 9/11 Commission Investigation.

    "IF" you care.

  • 1 decade ago

    The video you previously posted described the 707 as a pencil going right in to the large netting, cutting off the wings and with them, the fuel tanks.

    The kinetic energy of a 767 hitting the building is about 74 gigajoules.

    The kinetic energy of a 707 hitting the building is about 71.4 gigajoules.

    A fully loaded full speed 767 hits with about 3% more energy. The biggest difference, though, is the footprint. At 19 square meters, the 767 is nearly twice as big as the 11 square meter 707. The 707 may have gone in like a pencil, but the 767 went in like a wrecking ball, taking the wings and fuel tanks with them, causing the loss of several major trusses and the weakening of more during the ensuing fire, which led to catastrophic collapse.

    We now know that a 767 was sufficient to take down those buildings. Several independent physicists have analyzed the footage and data and confirmed how. We don't know that a 707 wouldn't have been enough, that was speculation by the designers. They very well could have simply been wrong.

  • Pfo
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    This article fails to examine the effects of the fuel burning and the subsequent fires in the towers. We can conclude that an airliner crashing with the WTC never brought it down, not in the past, and not on 9/11. The towers fell approximately 40 minutes after impact, clearly the impact alone did not bring it down.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yet the force created by a crash of a 767 still remains significantly greater than that caused by a 707...

    EDIT: it's nice to see that both liberals and conservatives can come together against the stupidity of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    First of all, what does this have to do with politics? Secondly, 707's haven't been used in over 10 years, or more. That was the jet model used, when jets started flying in the 60's. Better look at that information again.

  • ?
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    So? The boeing 767 still weighs more and was still going to full speed when it hit the towers

  • 1 decade ago

    The towers were not designed to withstand the impact of either plane traveling at the highest possible speed and with a full tank of fuel. It was expected collisions with the towers would be accidental lower speed collisions due to planes having issues attempting to return to the airport or lost in the fog. Please try again.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes,

    Did you know an SU-27 and F-15 weigh WAY WAY WAY less, but go a holy crap ton faster!

  • 1 decade ago

    Wait a minute, did you not claim 3 minutes ago that those were not Boeings, those were camouflaged missiles?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You folks should really post in the mental health section.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.