WTC designed to survive impact of 707

No, planes did strike, They definitely flew into the buildins, i dont buy the absurd French idea that no planes were used, that it was missile strikes. Thats just loony.

Has the picture been removed or is my computer acting up? If it has been removed then why?

Actually there may be credible evidence behind the whole missile strike.

Someone pointed out in an article that if you slow motion the video tape of the first plane, there is some kind of explosion from the turbine of the plane, maybe a rocket launcher of some sort.

nevermind, it's just my computer acting up.

As I have said before, I was part of the aftermath crew and worked there in Manhattan for 7 months after 9/11. I ate lunch and dinner along side the firemen, rescue workers, FEMA, etc etc. I saw nothing in my 7 months that was unusual and never heard a word from the over 1,000 people I met working there that implied that something was setup. They would have found something and there were way too many people involved to keep them all quiet.

It's interesting I guess to read the different ideas of what people thought happened that day, but I'll never buy it as I saw it all with my own eyes.



[Edited on 25-7-2003 by ProudAmerican]

If it was a whole government doin thing that would be the stupidest thing ever. Over millions of witnesses watching it on tv and out on the streets a moment that will be watched over and over for years to come. Do you think they would risk that cause they konw they would get caught.

No one has been able to give a simple explaination for the picture I posted, why not? I thought there was no conspiracy so explain it...

Originally posted by John Nada


Ok everyone if those gas tanks were burning SO HOT that they brought down both towers, how could this person stand just underneath then and not be dead from the heat or the fumes?

[Edited on 25-7-2003 by John Nada]

The red square on the picture denotes a person right??
How do we know that? its impossible to tell wether that is a person or not its not clear enough.

Can anyone give me an explanation to this picture? If someone can give me a reasonable explanation for this I'll never talk about a 9/11 conspiracy again.

(Actually I can't promise that, but...)

Originally posted by John Nada

Ok everyone if those gas tanks were burning SO HOT that they brought down both towers, how could this person stand just underneath then and not be dead from the heat or the fumes?

Heat rises dude.
As for the actual collapse of the building? The upper floors falling on the lower floors would have a pancake effect and therefore the thing looks like a controlled explosion.
The upper floors fell directly down. Not at an angle that would create a wider debris field.

Add this to the fact that there are literally thousands of witnesses who are still alive and were working in those buildings on that day and the controlled explosion theory is highly unlikely.
I don't know if any of you guys have ever seen TV programs about skyscrapers being demolished, but if you have, you will know that it is not something that you can do without having other people know about it.
Interior walls have to be demolished and huge quantities of shaped charges have to be drilled into structural walls.

Any attempt at a contolled explosion under the circumstances and the time available would have had the opposite effect to what actually happened. The building would have toppled and not pancaked.

"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

There have been numerous reports detailing the cause of the World Trade Center Tower collapse on September 11, 2001. Most have provided qualitative explanations; however, simple quantitative analyses show that some common conclusions are incorrect; for example, the steel could not melt in these flames and there was more structural damage than merely softening of the steel at elevated temperatures. Some guidelines for improvements in future structures are presented.

INTRODUCTION
The collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on September 11, 2001, was as sudden as it was dramatic; the complete destruction of such massive buildings shocked nearly everyone. Immediately afterward and even today, there is widespread speculation that the buildings were structurally deficient, that the steel columns melted, or that the fire suppression equipment failed to operate. In order to separate the fact from the fiction, we have attempted to quantify various details of the collapse.



--- do not copy and paste the material of other people into this site as specified in the terms and conditions you agreed to when joining this board --- find the link, and post the link

[Edited on 26-7-2003 by William]

I saw a documentary on channel 4 about a year ago on the twin towers, and it gave a fairly plausible explanation of what happened...

The towers were designed to withstand the impact. The fireproofing foam on the steel girders in the internal structure should have stopped the fires from damaging the structure. But the towers were not properly fireproofed as they should have been, whoever was in charge did a poor job and the foam was not spread out properly, it was only done thinly, and in patches.

When the planes hit the resulting explosions and fires blew away the thinly spread fireproof foam, and the steal floor trusses bent, buckled and collapsed. When one collapsed, it caused a domino effect and the floors collapsed one after the other, gathering momentum as the weight of the collapsed floors increased on top of the towers.

WTC COLLAPSE DEFIED PHYSICS


www.public-action.com...

Here is an interisting artical I found about eyewitness reports, theres some stuff about the attacks to

www.popsci.com...

www.icivilengineer.com...

The World Trade Center buildings were designed to collapse.
To fall right down if an impact or something large enough caused structional damage.

If I find the info I will post it.

You would not want a building of this height hanging on. There would be no way to repair the building or rescue anybody, without endangering the lives of others.


Bin Laden knew how to collaspe the buildings, he studied this, he's got his degree.

The heat of the fires was the last thing on some peoples minds. Some people not many, survived in the second Tower they were above where the airplane hit. On a floor or floors above.

They had a very hard time getting out, walked and crawled over dead bodies through heat and smoke in darkness, through a building that was falling apart. They were determined to get out and they did, not everybody was as lucky as them.

One other thing, you don't want a bulding like that swaying to the left or right. Careful planning went into the what ifs... on the design of those buildings.

Yes, the WTC was designed to handle a disaster, such as an airplane flying into it.

It was the FIRE that melted the STEEL that brought it down.

Those planes were full of fuel, it was done intentionaly.

Only buildings that I am aware of that could survive anything are the nuclear power plants. But I have my doubts on that one. Unless they fire off a nuclear weapon prior to an impact, if that was the case. Then I would say its a safe building.

So what? A new car is made to take an impact of a side swipe, doesn't mean they will.

Something can be designed to do something, but won't mean it will. How do you test it? Do you build an exact duplicate then crash a plane into it to see if it survives?

Second, a AIRPLANE hit the d@mn things!!!!!!!! I'm sorry, but if a airplane hits a building, it will be no more building.

Third, fire/explosions. Those kinda probably weren't factored into the equation. I doubt they expected a plane with almost full tanks hitting them.

Fourth, a AIRPLANE hit the d@mn things!!!!!!!!!

Fifth, a AIRPLANE hit the d@mn things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sixth..... you get my point.

See attached links....

architecture.about.com...

www.greatbuildings.com...