The TWIN towers were not brought down by CD explosives on 9/11

reply to post by waypastvne

Leslie Robertson, direct quote:

That is completely untrue, where is Leslie Robertson quote?? “ “ There are none!

Here is what he said:

One week before 9/11, WTC building designer Leslie Robertson reiterated the fact that the towers were designed to survive plane crashes:

“[color=gold]Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[23]

Notices the quotes around Leslie Robertson statements, where are yours??

When the media is not being deceptive, as you just demonstrated, they “ALWAYS” use the exact quote with quotations.

Also according to Robertson, the WTC towers were “in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[24]
Not only were the towers designed to survive plane crashes, they were designed to potentially [color=gold]survive multiple plane crashes. This fact is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“[color=gold]The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”[25]

www.nowpublic.com...

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Why did there have to be explosives in there to bring them down? Why couldnt it have just been massive structural failure from impact and fires, combined with gravity? After all, there seemed to be more than enough potential energy in those towers to have them collapse as they did. .

There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that Structural Integrity failure could of brought the towers down.

Here is a fact some truthers do not know OR choose to ignore.

The WTC buildings were only designed to take the impacts from one Boeing 707 to each building at the time of completion in 1974. They weren't designed to take the impacts of a Boeing 757 and a 767, which were much larger, faster and carried more fuel loads than the Boeing 707. The WTC buildings could take multiple impacts from smaller lightweight planes, but never multiple impacts from Boeing's 707s, 757s and 767s.

"The building was design to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that, the building properly could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intents grid and the jetplane is just a pencil puncture that screen neating, it really does nothing to the screen netting." - FRANK A. DEMARTINI

Now we got the expert opinion and the voice of someone who actually knows what he's talking about going against to what you just quoted without a Source.

First of all, your quote says "were only designed to take the impacts from one Boeing 707"

(hmm your quote seems like it was edited to make it fit ones opinion for example it says "The WTC buildings were only designed to take the impacts from one Boeing 707" Why is there a plural in the end of impact?, Impacts - more than one, it sure seem a long way from a typo, To make it correct it should have said "The WTC buildings were only designed to take an impact from one Boeing 707.." Im not good with all the grammer but i sure can see something is just wrong with that line)

but back to the point...It just going against what the person in the video is saying about taking impacts. He said from the above quote " The building was design to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that, the building properly could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners".

Its true that we both can agree on 707 was the largest at that time (commerically at least) and its not as big as the 757 and 767, However the 757 and 767 that hit the building wasnt fully loaded ex.full of fuel ( Source: Looking into it ) therefore, It could have been as light as a 707 or any plane a bit smaller of those of the 757 and 767 so we can assume that it would have done the same amount of damage or a little bit more, not as much of a difference though. So According to your source, the building could only take an impact from ONE plane which ONE plane did hit the towers. So anyone can debate this paragraph with the sources.

Now as far as your quote says "They weren't designed to take the impacts of a Boeing 757 and a 767, which were much larger, faster and carried more fuel loads than the Boeing 707. The WTC buildings could take multiple impacts from smaller lightweight planes, but never multiple impacts from Boeing's 707s, 757s and 767s."

and my source said " I believe that, the building properly could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners".(I'll take his word before anyone on here, no offense) He never ever mentioned what kind of jetliners that building could sustain but we can assume he meant ANY TYPE OF AIRLINERS small or large because with this quote " this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intents grid and the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting.", Now what happens when you put a pencil through that netting, what will happen? the damage would just stay in that area without affacting much of whatever is on the other side or around it and slowing an object which will lower the damage inside which in this case, the steal middle columns which is designed to be the hard core of a building to make sure it stays up which didnt get hit with full force to weaking them.

Also, from your source "The WTC buildings could take multiple impacts from smaller lightweight planes, but never multiple impacts from Boeing's 707s, 757s and 767s."
So if during the time, if someone flew 3 Planes into the towers from all angles with 707's or smaller lets say 6 smaller planes the building WOULD NOT FALL but have damage to it. Now if you take that into account, and add in the 757 and a 767 and compare it with those of a 6 multiple smaller lightweight planes then the damage would be smiliar to one 707 or even one 757 or 767 going into a mosquito netting type structure which again will only be in one area and not spreaded out or very deep in.

Those buildings wouldnt have fallen with just planes hitting it..

And as far as the jetfuel ... its not hot enough to melt steal but thats another topic in this subject.

And thank you impressme for your input.
Was writing this while you already posted up your info, Didnt see them until I finished

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by waypastvne

 

That is completely untrue, where is Leslie Robertson quote?? “ “ There are none!

Click this link and you can watch the words come out of his mouth.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Is that good enough for you or do you still need the quotation marks. I can edit them in if you want.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by waypastvne

 

That is completely untrue, where is Leslie Robertson quote?? “ “ There are none!

Click this link and you can watch the words come out of his mouth.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Is that good enough for you or do you still need the quotation marks. I can edit them in if you want.

Hmmm new source please.... BBC or any mainstream media source is not a credible or reliable source when it comes to this subject.. thank you

Please come again

reply to post by MilzGatez


Go out side and look up in the sky the video has been converted in to smoke signals. hurry its a short video.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by MilzGatez

 

Go out side and look up in the sky the video has been converted in to smoke signals. hurry its a short video.

LOL open up your sensors and be aware of the lies this world has by those who are way powerful than you and I but why dont you go buy the DVD I'm suer you can see for yourself nothing has been touched...

Here a link to buy it
www.amazon.com...

see I'll helped you on your way to enlightenment and awareness.

Originally posted by MilzGatez
see I'll helped you on your way to enlightenment and awareness.

Thanks Dude, You Rock !!!

reply to post by waypastvne


That’s called CYA. Even if the video is un- tampered, he states that 600 mph was the assumed speed regardless of which plane. If fuel was not a consideration in the 707 then why should it be different be on the 767? After all, the collapse of the WTC it had nothing to do with the fire and the majority of the fuel ignited and burned on impact. Also, most of the fuel was emptied as the front of each wing hit the building, but of course that is hardly relevant as a 707 holds 23,000 gallons of fuel and the 767 only 980 gallons more.

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:

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:

“[color=gold]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]

www.nowpublic.com...

So, what is your point? Is it because there is a different of 980 gallons of fuel? If that is all you have, it means very little and it does not disprove anything.

I think it's pretty obvious that lucifer 123456 is playing a role, yes? There's a new wave of new members doing the same thing. I cannot believe that the real members are taking the bait. One of these guys claims to work for the gov as a disinfo specialist, believes everything about the OS, and offers proxy servers to anyone gullible enough to desire a mainline to the Q section.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

What is the probability of 3 perfect demolitions on 3 buildings in the same day when nothing near the height of those buildings had ever been imploded in a controlled demolition in HISTORY. EVER. NEVER.

The TWIN towers are 1368 FT TALL. 110 stories and 3.12 times higher than anything else ever attempted in HISTORY. FACT.
----
So are we saying that on that fateful day of 9/11 all three of the WTC's that fell were so perfect even though it has been done before. ITS too perfect and the chances of three perfect demolitions of that size when NEVER been done before is astronomical.

Hahaha...you really crack me up you Lucifer lover you...it was just "too perfect" was it? Oh...so what you're saying, is that it's even more likely this "perfect" take down was caused by airliners? There aint enough laughing smileys in the world to show how hard I am laughing right now...yeah, but ummm....good try though...good try...

Right, lets put this to bed once and for all.

haha...Hahahah...HAhAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!


You're joking, right? You must be new here. You actually think you can "put this to bed once and for all"?

I'm sorry but that is, in the words of the evil genius Zbigniew Brzezinski, "STUNNINGLY NAIVE!"

Even an independent investigation couldn't put this to bed. And despite the success and steady growth of the Truth Movement, I still think George Carlin was absolutely correct.


"People who are in charge do what they want, and they will always do what they want. Power does what it wants to, and I wouldn't trust a new investigation. It's just fun, it's good speculation."

Hi Lucifer, please do keep on posting, we need some rehashed nonsense that even the good'ol gang has moved on from.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about as you proved with your comment of the airliners being so vastly different, we all invite you to at least do some research first...as that was clearly a moment.

Originally posted by starless and bible black
I think it's pretty obvious that lucifer 123456 is playing a role, yes? There's a new wave of new members doing the same thing. I cannot believe that the real members are taking the bait.

Yea its funny. Make a note of those OS'ers here today immediately replying to any new thread that contradicts or questions the OS, then take a break from ATS, and come back here in say 4 months. You will have the same zealous opponents...same old tired excuses..but with different usernames. Its like they rotate their staff or something..

I have many problems with the CD theory. From reading evidence I believe that the structural damage for the impact and the resulting fires was enough to start the collapse.

In this picture you can see the trusses buckling




In this photo you can clearly see the building buckling at the point of failure



As for wtc 7 here are pics of a massive amount of debris raining down on it



The resulting debris field

reply to post by CHA0S


First of Chaos, WHERE did i mention in THIS thread it was the planes that caused the building to come down? And secondly you are the joke here:

Chaos Theory

So, please do not come on here when you have NOT read my thread post and spout your rabble. You should of been banned when you wrote that STUPID thread on the ATS conspiracy. We'll see.

reply to post by drock905



These people or the "truthers" (cough cough) will never get it. Because they are so paranoid and their neural pathways are damaged.

No point wasting your time with the pictures my friend they are also blind.

But I think your post is more on the right lines than ANY truther or liar.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
What Im saying people is that CD would be highly improbable.

I did not mention in THIS thread that two planes brought down 3 buildings. READ.

I am saying that this scenario is not that possible.

I am just saying that CD explosives were NOT used. Truthers are still walking around saying Explosives were used to bring down the buildings and that a CD company was used.

Those with their sarcasm, are just a bit to dim to look at this for themselves and need to follow everyone else.

So, you think that you can discuss CD in a vacuum. Perhaps you have a vacuum between your ears and that's why you continuously open new threads rehashing the same, illogical truster arguments.

If you have trouble listening to what so called "truthers" have to say, perhaps you'll listen to what firemen and EMS peeps had to say at the time.

Source: NY Times & Victims Family FOIA Request making Suppressed Firemen Statements public
extracted from main source: Oral Histories From Sept. 11 Compiled by the New York Fire Department - The New York Times (Warning: Foul language in some of the documents)

FIREFIGHTER WILLIAM REYNOLDS

WTC2- large explosion below plane impact area before the collapse

After a while, I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake. I remember my jaw dropping and just staring at it and Richard Banaciski, one of the firemen that was there, yelled "Run" and I turned and I started running into the parking garage of the Financial Center.

Q. Bill, just one question. The fire that you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started collapsing?

A. It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact.

The reason why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the smoke was up above it.

Edward Cachia FDNY WTC2 explosions before collapse

As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a
lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, explosions p 14

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,

(Strangely, he talks about West Street, where he saw airplane parts, but nobody, and was wondering, no firefighters or civilians, that they probably must be on the Promenade side)then he says:
... I saw airplane parts on West Street.
... It looked like pieces of a plane, skin of a plane. I mean, they weren't really discernible. I couldn't say this was this part of a plane or that was that part. Just knowing a plane had hit the building and I looked and I saw it looked like the skin off a wing or a fuselage or wherever it came from.
... I was listening to the tape this morning of the people calling up and they were describing the plane that hit the building. Actually, so many people saw it. They actually described the plane as it came in. They said it was a military-type plane and it was green and it was this. I mean, I never saw the color of the plane.

There's no end of testimony complete with the pdfs so no need to accept even these three peoples' word for it. Find some who agree with you.

Originally posted by drock905
I have many problems with the CD theory. From reading evidence I believe that the structural damage for the impact and the resulting fires was enough to start the collapse.

In this picture you can see the trusses buckling




In this photo you can clearly see the building buckling at the point of failure



As for wtc 7 here are pics of a massive amount of debris raining down on it



The resulting debris field

hmm those are the outter layer of the building... Did also the middle core stronger than anything "buckled down"?

I think you should check out the blueprint of WTC
Here... have a look buddy...



So now imagine if that side of the Towers did buckled (which didnt.. it was like what 2-3 hours before they fell? pretty darn quick if you ask me.) that one side outter layer would have YES COLLAPSED DOWN so we would have seen a big ass hole or just that side with a little bit of the other both right and left side it would have simply turned into debris while the building still up and holding underneath the damage area(read the above posts, it is mentioned by someone how the building can hold its own weight plus many more) and also a part of the back side would have been up also exposing the inner layer (the middle core steal columns),

Think of the middle core steal column as your Spine, our spine is what is holding us up and balanced and our muscles,skin,meat,etcetc, is our outter layer which is protecting our spines from any injury that will render us useless or limited. or in this case, the outter layers are protecting the building spine (core columns) so it can stay up.

You can also read 911research.wtc7.net... but I doubt you would read since its coming from 911research

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R

No point wasting your time with the pictures my friend they are also blind.

Then why do you waste your time trying to push the OS nonsense, most people do not support it here on ATS. Perhaps, you should start to listen to some of the many posters on here, they are trying to guide you and show you plenty of real evidence that there is a problem with the OS, If you want to be ignorant that is your choice but you will not gain any good support by people who know better and have done their research. You will only end up on their ignore list for pushing proven lies.