Food for Thought: WTC Was Designed to Withstand Direct Impact from a 707 (vid)

[bronks]

Quote from achilles28:

People far more qualified than yourself have weighed in and said otherwise.

I am much more inclined to take their word for it then yours - since their experience eclipses yours by, I don't know, a million times?

Obviously they were wrong. And you, like they, can't admit when you are wrong.

Let me drill this in your head and for others of your ilk who just overanalyze the crap out of everything.

1. The building DID withstand the impact long enough to allow for evacuation
2. You cannot design a building to absorb that type of impact unless you've made it virtually inpenetrable so as the "insides" are not disturbed
3. Don't ever call me a carpenter again

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Haroki:

Ha ha -

Sorry guy, but my gf took one of the calls from flight 93. She was a deputy sheriff filling in at dispatch. She personally met the family afterwards. Went to Ground Zero. She had a hard time of it after meeting the family. She was even on tv for a couple of days.

Realistically, I probably know more than you do.

But to answer your question, I come from the real world.

Unlike you, where you live in bizarro world.....

yet no comment about the 3rd bldg...just gibberish about your girlfriends phone call? wow... i guess you got me there !!!!!!!

 

[achilles28]

Quote from bronks:

Obviously they were wrong. And you, like they, can't admit when you are wrong.

Obviously. Even though the Towers were designed to survive such a contingency!! And even 'multiple' contingencys!!

Tautological. Look it up.

Quote from bronks:

Let me drill this in your head and for others of your ilk who just overanalyze the crap out of everything.

1. The building DID withstand the impact long enough to allow for evacuation

The towers were designed to survive the impact and resulting fires from a FULLY FUELED 707.

The WTC onsite construction manager said it. And the carpenter says otherwise.

I stand corrected!

Quote from bronks:

2. You cannot design a building to absorb that type of impact unless you've made it virtually inpenetrable so as the "insides" are not disturbed

Really? And what insider knowledge are you privy to that the actual designers and engineers of the WTC weren't?

Quote from bronks:

3. Don't ever call me a carpenter again

carpenter

 

[Grob109]

Quote from achilles28:

Obviously. Even though the Towers were designed to survive such a contingency!! And even 'multiple' contingencys!!

Tautological. Look it up.




The towers were designed to survive the impact and resulting fires from a FULLY FUELED 707.

The WTC onsite construction manager said it. And the carpenter says otherwise.

I stand corrected!





Really? And what insider knowledge are you privy to that the actual designers and engineers of the WTC weren't?





carpenter

Think carefully.

Was there an impact?

Did the towers survive?

Now the impact is over and other things are happening. Lots of other things.

The rules and standards were met for planes impacting buildings, etc.

The rules and standards did not work for many buildings that day with regard to other considerations. You will find how much energy was involved at some point. Look into how long it was stored on the site after the impact.

Bronks is explaining a lot of stuff to those that can understand it.

The buildings simply fell apart after they were overwhelmed by the effects of the release of enegy in concentrated focused places which were under heavily loaded conditions.

A cummulative effect occurred as the collapse was initiated. A gravitational impact of many many times the planes hitting the buildings.

 

[EqtTrdr]

Quote from Grob109:

Think carefully.

Was there an impact?

Did the towers survive?

Now the impact is over and other things are happening. Lots of other things.

The rules and standards were met for planes impacting buildings, etc.

The rules and standards did not work for many buildings that day with regard to other considerations. You will find how much energy was involved at some point. Look into how long it was stored on the site after the impact.

Bronks is explaining a lot of stuff to those that can understand it.

The buildings simply fell apart after they were overwhelmed by the effects of the release of enegy in concentrated focused places which were under heavily loaded conditions.

A cummulative effect occurred as the collapse was initiated. A gravitational impact of many many times the planes hitting the buildings.

So an invisible plane hit WTC7???

 

[Sam123]

This thread is a flytrap for moonbats suspicious of common sense.

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from Grob109:

Think carefully.

Was there an impact?

Did the towers survive?

As of yet, we don't know of anything so much as a brick that hit WTC7.

http://www.media-criticism.com/World_Trade_Center_7_2003.html

Sherlock Holmes once remarks how odd it is that a guard dog did not bark at a midnight intruder. Similarly, it is curious how few people bothered to photograph a building about to totally collapse when destruction of an inconceivable scale had been released just hours before (only 200' away). Apparently, the WTC-7 fires were not photogenic. Indeed, when viewing the extant documentation there are only small fires that are localized within the offices of the Securites Exchange Commission (SEC). Ironically, never before 9/11/01 in history has a steel building even partially collapsed from a fire. Neither has any since.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“World Trade Center Building Performance Study”, document number 403, May, 2002), 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored in diesel tanks just above and at ground level. The fuel, stored in fire-resistant containers, was there to run backup generators. However, the report never says for sure whether any burned. It also fails to confirm that burning diesel was the source of the building’s collapse. The report even ignores the biggest mystery of all. How this building could have fallen in its own footprint rather unlike what is expected from the Leaning Tower of Pisa is not discussed.

FEMA’s report is filled with rampant speculation and hypothetical scenarios. Throughout it are weasel-words such as “appears” and “apparently”. The tone is set in the first paragraph. It says that the “performance of” World Trade Center 7’s collapse is “of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing [Twin] towers.” Overall, very little of this report is stated with conviction.

FEMA's nonchalance about WTC-7’s collapse is stunning. Structural failures of this magnitude do not normally take place. In addition, there was high-profile, large-budget government agencies leasing office space in WTC-7 that day. Besides the SEC, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM) were all tenants. None of the current heads of these departments have been vocal in demanding to know why this building collapsed. In addition, while some details have been released, a full accounting of what data these agencies lost has not been prominently reported.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from ratboy88:

yet no comment about the 3rd bldg...just gibberish about your girlfriends phone call? wow... i guess you got me there !!!!!!!

Ok then.....

WTC 7 fell too...

Happy now ????

So what's your respnse to the fact that I know someone that took a cell phone call from one of the flight 93 passengers ? You know, from 25k feet.... where cell phones don't work, according to the nutjob conspiracy theorists?

Would this qualify as proof that the conspiracy theorists' nutty ideas MIGHT be garbage?

And if one part of their theory is shot down, does that raise a suspicion of doubt in you as to the probability that the WHOLE theory is crap?

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from Haroki:

Ok then.....

WTC 7 fell too...

Happy now ????

Think like grob109: Was there an impact?

So what's your respnse to the fact that I know someone that took a cell phone call from one of the flight 93 passengers ? You know, from 25k feet.... where cell phones don't work, according to the nutjob conspiracy theorists?

Would this qualify as proof that the conspiracy theorists' nutty ideas MIGHT be garbage?

You know someone who took a call from: Who at what altitude? If the altitude was 25k, it's possible she was not talking to whom she thought she was as the chances of completing a call from that altitude is sketchy. So she got a call from someone who said they were on a hijacked plane? And she was able to verify that, how?

Someone else alledgedly on that flight called his mother, introduced himself by his first AND last name, and after telling her he was on a hijacked plane, asked his mom if she believed him.

Did the person who called your gf ask her if she BELEIVED what she was hearing?

And if one part of their theory is shot down, does that raise a suspicion of doubt in you as to the probability that the WHOLE theory is crap?

Part one is not yet shot down. Try again.

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from bronks:



Get a clue and stop being so paranoid.

OK, here's a clue:

Days before the attack, Mohammad Atta, the alledged chief of the highjackers, gets a $100,000 payout from Pakistani chief of intelligence: General Mahmud Ahmad. Six days before the attack, this same General Mahmud Ahamed chief of Pakistani version of the CIA, meets with chief of US CIA, George Tenent. The morning of the attack, this same General Mahmud Ahmad (who paid Atta) meets with the chairman of the secret service committees of the house of representatives and the senate.

Later, many of the alledged hijackers turn up alive and well in their respective countries. Later, Atta's father says he got a call from his son, on September 12th, the day after our government tells us he crashed a plane into a skyscraper.