[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Re: The War on Truthers
not sure about random pdfs you keep blabing about, but why is what you keep harping on not in the official report? or are you just not understanding it? the report is nicely summarized for mere mortals to understand around the web so not sure what crazy shit you want to keep pushing.
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916485]not sure about random pdfs you keep blabing about, but why is what you keep harping on not in the official report? or are you just not understanding it? the report is nicely summarized for mere mortals to understand around the web so not sure what crazy shit you want to keep pushing.[/QUOTE]
Yes but that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but you don't want to accept any of the because the alternative is to scary for you.
Re: The War on Truthers
I can also show you video footage but you also don't want to watch anything
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916488]I can also show you video footage but you also don't want to watch anything[/QUOTE]
Videos of a building falling that looks like a building falling because it was demo'd don't really do much to convince me. ;)
Re: The War on Truthers
Well, you say it's such a small, small world flying Club Class back from the far-east curled up safe and warm in the big chair you were drifting through the skies of anywhere Get the courtesy car to the Sheraton there's live on-the-spot reports on the CNN between the ad-breaks so you think you know what's going on - but you don't because you weren't in Belfast, no you weren't there and no you weren't in Waco, no you weren't there and you weren't in Kosovo, you weren't there and you weren't in my head so you don't know how it felt walking arm in arm with crowds to the square and the banners waving and the sun glinting
All this information swims round and round like a shoal of fish in a tank going nowhere Up and down between the glass walls You're so safe in the knowledge they're impenetrable and you look out at the world and see nothing at all so go back to sleep and you'll be woken when the time comes and you'll never know just what hit you or where it came from because you weren't in Bradford, no you weren't there and you weren't on the hill, no you weren't there and you weren't with us so you never saw just what happened when the television crews came knocking on the door how the people told them all to go to Hell, smashed the cameras and sent them away There were sirens going off and policemen coming in and all that you love was being swept away in the rush of a black tide all done in your name and you'll never know just what happened there or how it feels - just how it feels . .
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916398]Yes they were designed to withstand and aircraft collision and with the fuel load. This has been verified many times before. Miro tried to use this argument before using one of the architects Aaron Swirsky (check out Aaron Swirsky at 17.45 on the video below)
[URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en#"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en#[/URL][/QUOTE]
i thought we were talking about Building 7? you posted information of airplane impacts to Building 1/2 - [URL]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html[/URL]
since we're on the subject, your comparison of the Windsor building/Deepwater Horizon to Building 1/2 is weak. Windsor/DwH did not sustain impact or structural damage from an airplane crash. Building 1 had a total of 110 floors and was struck between the 93rd and 99th floors. Building 2 had a total of 107 floors and was struck between the 77th and 85th floors. the airplanes hit the upper parts of each building creating great strain on the lower parts. the NIST found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers." the collapses were related to structural failures caused by each airplane crash
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916485]not sure about random pdfs you keep blabing about, but why is what you keep harping on not in the official report? or are you just not understanding it? the report is nicely summarized for mere mortals to understand around the web so not sure what crazy shit you want to keep pushing.[/QUOTE]
are you talking about the 9/11 commission report??? We must have had different copies.
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=CircleUP;916702]i thought we were talking about Building 7? you posted information of airplane impacts to Building 1/2 - [URL]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Building 7 wasnt his be a plane.
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=CircleUP;916702]i
since we're on the subject, your comparison of the Windsor building/Deepwater Horizon to Building 1/2 is weak. Windsor/DwH did not sustain impact or structural damage from an airplane crash. [/QUOTE]
No but they are good examples of how steel structures react under intense and prolonged fires. Nether structure was weakend enough for colapse.
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=CircleUP;916702] NIST found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers." the collapses were related to structural failures caused by each airplane crash[/QUOTE]
NIST came up with this hypothesis but where unable to even remotely recreate it. [FONT=sans-serif]Underwriters Laboratories were given the task of trying to recreate the weakening of the floors in the furnaces. Kevin Ryan [/FONT]blew the whistle on this and was fired from his job at [FONT=sans-serif]Unerwriters Laboratories. [/FONT]NIST also claimed the the umpact of the plane removed all the fire proofing from the WTC buildngs.
I will dig out the footage for you
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916485]not sure about random pdfs you keep blabing about, but why is what you keep harping on not in the official report? or are you just not understanding it? the report is nicely summarized for mere mortals to understand around the web so not sure what crazy shit you want to keep pushing.[/QUOTE]
Oh and that pdf you won't read came from the NIST website
[URL]http://wtc.nist.gov/[/URL]
[URL]http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6BDraft.pdf[/URL]
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916782]Building 7 wasnt his be a plane.[/QUOTE]
yeah debris.
[QUOTE=chunky;916783]No but they are good examples of how steel structures react under intense and prolonged fires. Nether structure was weakend enough for colapse.[/QUOTE]
prob a good reason why they didn't collapse then.
[QUOTE=chunky;916786]NIST came up with this hypothesis but where unable to even remotely recreate it. [FONT=sans-serif]Underwriters Laboratories were given the task of trying to recreate the weakening of the floors in the furnaces. Kevin Ryan [/FONT]blew the whistle on this and was fired from his job at [FONT=sans-serif]Unerwriters Laboratories. [/FONT]NIST also claimed the the umpact of the plane removed all the fire proofing from the WTC buildngs.
I will dig out the footage for you[/QUOTE]
from the FAQ:
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
I'm sure this one guy is right, and the rest have been bought out to keep quiet.
[QUOTE=chunky;916787]Oh and that pdf you won't read came from the NIST website
[URL]http://wtc.nist.gov/[/URL]
[URL]http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6BDraft.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]
just the faqs mam, just the faqs.
[URL]http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm[/URL] [URL]http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm[/URL]
I'm sure you must be honing in on one out of context sentence from a 300 page pdf you don't understand is I'm sure what you are getting at. If it was relevant to the final report, it would be in there.
Re: The War on Truthers
Nice copy and paste skills res0. We have been through this time and time again and as you keep pionting out you don't want to read or watch anything so why do you bother?
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916798]yeah debris.
prob a good reason why they didn't collapse then.
[/QUOTE]
But building 7 did
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916804]But building 7 did[/QUOTE]
yeah debris
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916803]Nice copy and paste skills res0. We have been through this time and time again and as you keep pionting out you don't want to read or watch anything so why do you bother?[/QUOTE]
think ive seen every amateur youtube scientists writeup already thanks to this forum :D
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE] the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, [COLOR=red]dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses [/COLOR]and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors[/QUOTE]
Complete bullshit
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916806]think ive seen every amateur youtube scientists writeup already thanks to this forum :D[/QUOTE]
You're contradicting yourself now Res0. You have seen every amateur youtube scientists writeup but you didn't know who the Jersey Windows where
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916805]yeah debris[/QUOTE]
What debris caused all the 21 of the internal columns in building 7 to systematically fail. Bullshit
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916807]Complete bullshit[/QUOTE]
I am glad you know more than 200 investigators, that is pretty outstanding ;)
[QUOTE=chunky;916810]You're contradicting yourself now Res0. You have seen every amateur youtube scientists writeup but you didn't know who the Jersey Windows where[/QUOTE]
I created youtube.
[QUOTE=chunky;916812]What debris caused all the 21 of the internal columns in building 7 to systematically fail. Bullshit[/QUOTE]
lrn2read
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
This is fun.
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916815]
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building. [/QUOTE]
Its still no enough to bring down a whole building and in under 20 seconds. Can you find another example of this ever happening. No
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916817]Its still no enough to bring down a whole building and in under 20 seconds. Can you find another example of this ever happening. No[/QUOTE]
From the FAQ:
[B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B]
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Damnit man!!!
:roflmao:
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916819]From the FAQ:
[B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B]
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, [COLOR=red]did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.[/COLOR] :roflmao:[/QUOTE]
I asked you to provide an example of a building that did collapse. You give me another example of a building that didn't. Damn you're good :roflmao:
Check out this at 20 mins
[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en#[/url]
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916817]Can you find another example of this ever happening. No[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=chunky;916820]I asked you to provide an example of a building that did collapse. You give me another example of a building that didn't. Damn you're good :roflmao: [/QUOTE]
[B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B]
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires
You really cant be this dumb in real life or you would have accidently fell down a open manhole cover by now or something. Thanks for playing.
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916823][B]Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?[/B]
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires
.[/QUOTE]
And that is the problem. This had never happened before and could not have been predicted but somehow the BBC and many news outlets reported on the collapse before it happened
[video=youtube;Wd-2jVY0ZS4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd-2jVY0ZS4[/video]
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916823]
You really cant be this dumb in real life or you would have accidently fell down a open manhole cover by now or something. Thanks for playing
.[/QUOTE]
Res0 if you are going to be offensive there is no point in talking to you. Let me remind you it was you who has this Antique CCTV theory
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916824]And that is the problem. This had never happened before and could not have been predicted but somehow the BBC and many news outlets reported on the collapse before it happened[/quote]
CIA?
[quote] Res0 if you are going to be offensive there is no point in talking to you. Let me remind you it was you who has this Antique CCTV theory[/QUOTE]
Sorry.
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916825]CIA?
Sorry.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry about it, we have come to expect it from you
Re: The War on Truthers
yeah i only can take so much ignorance before i just get a bit annoyed :lol:
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916829]yeah i only can take so much ignorance before i just get a bit annoyed :lol:[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.bluescore.net/work/Vic_Bob_Handbags.jpg[/IMG]
Re: The War on Truthers
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Q8B0P.jpg[/IMG]
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916829]yeah i only can take so much ignorance before i just get a bit annoyed :lol:[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should stick to the TV/Movies forum.
Re: The War on Truthers
cricket chirp
Re: The War on Truthers
[IMG]http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/360/b/0/Popeye_Facepalm_by_CptFarfegnugen.gif[/IMG]
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916820]I asked you to provide an example of a building that did collapse. You give me another example of a building that didn't. Damn you're good :roflmao:
Check out this at 20 mins
[URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en#"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en#[/URL][/QUOTE]
Since this is still fun I checked a bit of that video out, I even gave you an extra minute and started around 19 minutes in.
Well I can understand why you love vids so much since you aren't actually reading and understanding any of the FAQs.
[quote] @ 19:20 "they are actually fairly comparable" [/quote]From the same FAQ above:
[URL]http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm[/URL]
FIRST BULLET POINT (it was buried in there I know):
[quote] [B]1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
[/B]The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft ([COLOR=magenta]which is about 20 percent bigger [/COLOR]than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. [/quote]- Also I'm sure this guy doesn't have tourettes, but there is some nice audio chopping up going on in those 30 seconds of whatever he is saying.
[quote] @ 19:48 "you have an event well within the design parameters...." [/quote]- Obviously untrue since the planes didn't even exist at the time. :lol:
[quote] @ 20:00 "...over designed to withstand an airplane hitting them..." [/quote]- Obviously untrue since the planes didn't even exist at the time. :lol:
[quote] @ 21:11 "...they need to have all the fireproofing stripped off..." [/quote]From the same FAQ above (THIRD bullet point):
[quote] [B]3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse. [/B] [/quote]No where in this section does it say ALL fireproofing in the WHOLE building was dislodged. Measuring intact fireproofing from who knows where (first floor corner somewhere) is good proof? :lol:
3 errors and misinterpretations/misquotes in 1 minute. Excellent link...you really are letting these peeps think for you?
This is STILL FUN!!!! I love the interwebs Perry Masons!!!!
:lol:
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916815]I am glad you know more than 200 investigators, that is pretty outstanding ;)
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
[/QUOTE]
This new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was debunked on the day it was released. The BBC even droped the story after making a big deal about the pending anouncment.
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html[/URL]
According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
This study, posed by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology#Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center"]the National Institute of Standards and Technology[/URL] -- a federal scientific agency which promotes technical industrial standards -- marks the first 'official' government theory on the collapse.
The building's demise occurred some seven hours after the twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been the source of numerous conspiracy theories key to the "9/11 Truth" movement, most of which argue that the symmetrical, seven-second collapse was brought about by a controlled demolition.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, director of Institute's building and fire research laboratory, oversaw the government's three-year research efforts. The report aims to disprove the controlled demolition argument.
However, Richard Gage, founder of [URL="http://www.ae911truth.org/"]Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth[/URL] and a member of the American Institute of Architects, doesn't believe a word of the theory.
His group, which has swelled to over 400 architectural and engineering professionals, immediately responded to the Institute's claim in a press conference.
"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack," said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. "Steel doesn't begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused."
"There are holes in this story that you can drive a truck through," Gage added during the press conference. His group asserts that thermite, a steel cutting agent, was used to bring the building down.
Dr. Sunder disagreed.
"We conducted the study without bias, without interference from anyone," said Dr. Sunder. "We have only one single-minded goal in this effort."
While the Institute said it considered the possibility of a controlled demolition taking place at WTC 7, the notion was dismissed due to the absence of any recordings of an explosion sound.
Thermite, however, does not make an explosion sound. And while this was raised to Dr. Sunder in the media's Q&A session, he dismissed it as impossible.
"FEMA found it," said Gage. "Dr. Steven Jones found it, in the dust that landed in the entire area of lower Manhattan. And he finds it in the chunks of previously molten metal [from the towers]."
Specifically, in Appendix C of its World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA claimed: [INDENT]Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. [/INDENT]Yet, no study of the mysterious sulfur or melted steel was included in the NIST report.
After New York City officials cut off the water main to the tower Sept. 11, 2001, the building's sprinkler system was unable to function, Dr. Sunder said. This allowed fires across 10 floors to burn uncontrolled for nearly seven hours.
The Institute asserts that due to the lack of water supply, an “extraordinary event” occurred, and for the first time ever, steel expanding due to heat from the flames caused columns to separate from structural concrete. Column 79 was the first to fail, according to the report, which brought about a quick succession of failures in adjoining columns.
"Thermal expansion of long-span floor systems" was a critical element in the collapse, said Dr. Sunder. The "kink" seen in the building's penthouse portion in video of the collapse was in-line with the columns which failed first.
"If water had been available, it is likely that sprinklers would have operated and the building may still be here today," he said.
"It looks like they want to wrap-up this investigation and blame [the collapse] on normal office fires," said Gage during counter-conference.
WTC 7's structural system is in "widespread use" in other buildings, he added, insisting that such effects may also be present elsewhere. The Institute's report also includes recommendations for the strengthening of building codes to avoid future thermal expansion-driven collapses.
The collapse of WTC 7 is "no longer a mystery," Dr. Sunder claimed.
The Institute's full report is available at [URL="http://wtc.nist.gov/"]wtc.nist.gov[/URL].
Further details from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth press conference are forthcoming.
[URL="http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html"]http://rawstory.com/news/2008/BREAKING_NIST_%3CI%3Efinally%3CI%3E_poses_theory_on_0821.html[/URL]
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916934]
[B]1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?[/B]
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft ([COLOR=magenta]which is about 20 percent bigger [/COLOR]than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2.
[/QUOTE]
We went through this before Res0. I love the way you keep jumping back to the NIST report though
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
[IMG]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p253/71chunky/odds/aircraftcomparison.gif[/IMG]
This seems a lot more logical to most people.
[QUOTE]Thomas Eager Proffeser of materials Enginering
The impact of the planes would not have been significant because the number of cloumns lost on the inital impact was not large and the loads where shifted to the remaing columns in this highly redundant structure [/QUOTE]
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=CircleUP;916891]cricket chirp[/QUOTE]
I will continue when I'm back home tonight. You have not said a great deal yourself :cricket chirp:
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;916934]
:[/QUOTE]
So you're saying the largest aircraft in use when the towers where designed was a Boeing 707
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=chunky;916994]So you're saying the largest aircraft in use when the towers where designed was a Boeing 707[/QUOTE]
Good God man.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center[/URL]
[SIZE=5]Opening April 4, 1973
[/SIZE]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767[SIZE=5] First flight September 26, 1981[/SIZE] [SIZE=5]
[/SIZE]Just the FAQs:
[SIZE=5] [/SIZE]As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that [SIZE=5]the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.[/SIZE]
Re: The War on Truthers
[QUOTE=res0nat0r;917071]Good God man.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center[/URL]
[SIZE=5]Opening April 4, 1973
[/SIZE]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767[SIZE=5] First flight September 26, 1981[/SIZE] [SIZE=5]
[/SIZE]Just the FAQs:
[SIZE=5] [/SIZE]As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that [SIZE=5]the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
No you missed the question. Was the largest aircraft in operation in 1973 a Boeing 707?