been on an island for 10 years, what happened?

Another quick message to "Cashlink".

What I´ve known or read about the "design" of the towers as far as airplanes hitting them is that they were designed to be able to withstand the impact of a B707 airplane, AT LOW SPEED. (Which would be approach speed. Very different.)
The planes that impacted each tower were not B707´s and each of those planes was going very fast. You could say they were going at top speed.
As far as the fuel load, I really don´t know or haven´t seen what fuel load was calculated on the 707 in the design.

And actually the point here is that the building resisted the impact, it didn´t fail right then, so it complied better that the original design calculations!! The fact that the building collapsed after a pretty long time speaks very good of the structure and is a different matter IMHO.


[edit on 20-12-2008 by rush969]

reply to post by rush969

It does not matter! The WTC where design to with stand multiple impacts. Please read the links that I provide you, even the WTC building designer (said those WTC should have not falling from airplanes crashing into them!) It dose not matter how fast those airplanes where going it was design to withstand multiple impacts. The out sides of the WTC were design like a fish net.

willyloman.wordpress.com...

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11
By Arabesque
The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:
“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[3]
In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”[4]
Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6]
In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them. Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:
“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[7]
One of these hypothetical examples was put to the test in the 1993 WTC bombing. This attack prompted more discussions about the safety of the WTC towers. In response to these concerns, WTC building designer John Skilling explained that they “looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… A previous analysis carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.”[8]
This statement indicates that the designers considered Boeing 707 airplane impact speeds of 600 mph. It seems likely that the designers considered this impact speed for the reason that the cruse speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph.[9] In comparison, both of the planes that hit the WTC Towers on 9/11 were Boeing 767’s. The FEMA report indicates that Flight 11 flew at a speed of 470 mph into the North Tower, and the second plane flew at a speed of 590 mph into the South Tower.[10] Not only were these speeds anticipated by the building designers, the Boeing 707 is similar in size to the ones flown into the towers on 9/11. According to Jim Hoffman, the planes used on 9/11 were “only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.”[11] This statement is supported by the following chart:
property[12]
Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph
In fact, Hoffman observes that “a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size.”[13]
Commercial airliners typically fly with jet fuel, so it is not surprising that the designers would consider this problem. In 1993, Skilling explained that they performed an analysis that concluded that the WTC towers would survive the impact and jet fuel fires from a Boeing 707:
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed… The building structure would still be there.”[14]
In fact, no steel-framed building structures had ever collapsed due to fire before or since 9/11.[15] This further supports Skilling’s analysis about the possibility of jet fuel destroying the WTC towers. According to Paul Thompson, “the analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964.”[16] This ‘white paper’ concluded that:
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”[17]
Thompson explains that “besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[18] In fact, many of the building documents are unavailable because “the building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns.”[19]
The lack of access to WTC building documents remains a problem to this day. Indeed, in March of 2007, Steven Jones and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice finally obtained the WTC blueprints from an anonymous individual.[20]
Although the WTC was “over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it,” [21] the designers did not apparently consider controlled demolition:
“Skilling—a recognized expert in tall buildings—doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. ‘However,’ he added, ‘I'm not saying that properly applied explosives—shaped explosives—of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.’ Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. ‘I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.’”[22]
One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

no ones going to read all that...........

according to the laws of physics the damn plane should of barely entered the building, let alone punch holes through several inches of thick structural steel. The outer shell of a plane is 2mm thick and made from aluminum, yeah that's right 2mm of aluminium. How in the hell does that punch through a steel girder! Hello? lol..

reply to post by Insolubrious


Thank you and this is using logic! I just cannot understand why so many people cannot think using simple logic. It is plain as day.

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by guinnessford
thought this may be interesting, and would get some REALLY good replies to this, from alot of the smarter, more knowledgable members. lets say i just came back from being on a deserted island for 10 years, and missed it all. could someone sum this whole 9-11 thing up for me? and id love to hear from all three sides of this story, please!

I can do it with two.

INSIDE JOB

Total Agreement, you want to know how much was covered up
in the 911 comission report watch 911 press for truth.

9-11 Press for Truth

I realized I had to get myself under control, and this with all the
other things that have been going on over the last 7 years they
will absolutely imprison or kill each and everyone who tries to give
them the justice they deserve.

So my bug out bag is packed, and I wish you all the best of luck.

Good Luck to you all !

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by king9072Please tell me this was a joke? If it wasn't, your likely the most brain-washed person on this entire forum :S

Oh, I thought the Op was asking for everyones personal opinions. You don't like mine so you call me brainwashed. Personally I would think many of the folks here that buy into a lot of THESE theories are brain washed, or are just afraid to disagree with other posters.

I honestly believe Bin Laden is a heck of a lot smarter than the entire Bush administration combined. If the administration could have planned 9/11 and had it go off so well, then why have they fd up every other thing they tried to do? Even if they MEANT to ruin the country, if they were that brilliant they would not end up looking like the idiots that they are. They could have done all this and STILL managed to convince everyone the WMD existed.

[edit on 18-12-2008 by Sonya610]

The fact that the Bush administration was caught red handed
in lying about 9/11 is covered very well in the documentary.

9/11 press for Truth.

I linked in my other post earlier.

Numerous times "all" members of the Bush Administration were
caught lying about the facts.

Why lie if you have nothing to hide ?

Watch the film, and if you feel the same, then you are entitled to
your opinions as are those who do not share yours.

To many engineers, firefighters, and police have come forward
saying it is a cover up at a minimum, and possibly worse.

The fact that weeks before 9/11 at the G8 summit they hid on
a boat with anti air missiles ready says they knew of the plane
as a weapon threat and decided to lie about it.

Originally posted by Moose Head
no ones going to read all that...........

All this time...I had no idea I was no one.

¡¡¡MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY 2009!!!::

Originally posted by Sonya610
If the administration could have planned 9/11 and had it go off so well, then why have they fd up every other thing they tried to do? Even if they MEANT to ruin the country, if they were that brilliant they would not end up looking like the idiots that they are. They could have done all this and STILL managed to convince everyone the WMD existed.

This post to me is the best argument against all conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job or having anything to do with the Bush Admin.
They "may have let it happen" doesn´t cut it either, because they wouldn´t be so clumsy on everything else!!
The fact is, they were too arrogant to see the danger of what was coming, typical "denyal" (this can´t happen to me).
The only explanation for an inside job within the U.S. for 9/11 would be that the Bush Gov. is a puppet of "others". Of course we have those theories too!!

reply to post by rush969


I have to agree with cashlink I think he has shown enough proof that the Government was involved. By the way, I have notice no one gave him any point’s for all that hard work he did or anyone else. I do not know why he waste his time doing good research and no one think it is worth rewarding him, that was a lot of work he did., oh well.

id give him all the points in the world! how do you do it?

Well, most of the references provided by “cashlink” have been discussed and discredited or proven inaccurate, wrong, misleading, mine quoting, false etc...
That´s why I said his sources speak for themselves. They are speculative, they don´t provide proof of anything, they are based only on what “they” found “convenient” for their version of events or what they are trying to support. A few simple examples:
A person says: “It sounded like an explosion.”
And that is used to support the point of a demolition of a building!!
At the Pentagon a witness says:
“It was going very fast, I couldn't tell if it was a plane or a missile.”
And then that is exhibited as proof that a missile hit the Pentagon!!
It doesn´t matter if fifty people say they saw the American Airlines plane.
The debris that was photographed outside of the Pentagon, showing clearly the AA paint job on portions of the fuselage........”PLANTED”. Bodies inside the Pentagon.......”PLANTED”. Airplane parts......”PLANTED”.

So, anything that refutes “their” case, is part of a conspiracy and rejected.
On the other hand, these people don´t show you any information that can give you a different perspective of things. They hide from you witness statements, sound on videos that show there were no explosions which would have to be very clearly audible in case of explosives.
Then of course they come out with “new tech” bombs that make no sound. PLEASE!!!

You can check ALL THIS at 911myths.com if you so desire.
It´s been more than 7 years now and people keep going in circles on different issues on 9/11 that they simply cannot accept. It´s called “denial” and it´s a defense mechanism.