why is there still nothing there....at the wtc site

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Insolubrious
All they need to do is make the building out of the same materials used to make flight 175, since the plane was clearly stronger than the original WTC steel facade. The result would be a much more economical solution with a thinner outer skin, allowing for an extra 10,000 square feet of office space. Who needs structual steel when the fuselage of a passenger plane is much stronger. Well at least according to OCT.

OH not this BS again the planes went through due to there mass and velocity.

True, there is a vid of an f4 jet plowing thru about 20 ft of solid concrete, if you go fast enough you can push a raindrop through a cubic meter of steel

Originally posted by mordant1

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Insolubrious
All they need to do is make the building out of the same materials used to make flight 175, since the plane was clearly stronger than the original WTC steel facade. The result would be a much more economical solution with a thinner outer skin, allowing for an extra 10,000 square feet of office space. Who needs structual steel when the fuselage of a passenger plane is much stronger. Well at least according to OCT.

OH not this BS again the planes went through due to there mass and velocity.

True, there is a vid of an f4 jet plowing thru about 20 ft of solid concrete, if you go fast enough you can push a raindrop through a cubic meter of steel

I don't know, you might want to watch that f4 video again. I don't think it plowed thru a inch of that cement barrier. I think you might be watching the wing tips shear off and continue straight as if their going thru the cement barrier.

Although I agree with you and the other guy, it shouldn't be surprising at all that those jets punched thru the towers.

Some need to think for a second, during WW2 did you see the guys building bunkers use steel for the exterior's, no it was ten, twelve feet thick re-barred concrete. Those buildings didn't stand a chance of deflecting the blow.

reply to post by PersonalChoice


The plane didn't explode until it was inside the building. Only the military develop weapons capable of this. The bunkers you refer to were shelter from bomb and missile attacks, not passenger plane crashes!

Watch carefully in te following video. Also note the holes generated by the wing tips and the ominous flashes before impact:


[edit on 23-7-2010 by Insolubrious]

reply to post by Insolubrious


I don't know Insolubrious, I think the reason we don't see the jet explode out side of it is b/c 1) The speed of the 767 and 2) the wall it hit put up little resistance. Because of those two things the jet fuel doesn't have time to ignite outside of the building.

For instance, at the Pentagon I think the reason we see the massive explosion outside of the building even though it was going ruffly the same speed, is because the Pentagon walls were able to resist the wing tanks in some areas.

Just my humble opinion.

The bunkers you refer to were shelter from bomb and missile attacks, not passenger plane crashes!

I agree, but even if they were going to build them specifically for kamikaze passenger planes crashing into them, wouldn't they build them the same way?

I was just trying to make a point, that steel beams with spaces in between them, filled with glass, is not going to deflect or stop another object moving at several hundred miles an hour.

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
I agree, but even if they were going to build them specifically for kamikaze passenger planes crashing into them, wouldn't they build them the same way?

Well you know the WTC towers were actually designed to withstand plane impacts, it was a serious consideration and objective of the design since it happened once to the Empire States Building, which of course wasn't designed to have a plane crash into it.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


They are building it very slowly...probably because they are building like ants underground....some secret elite hide-out.

reply to post by depmode101


i heard they built a war ship out of the metal from the site! not sure the name of it, but if u can build a war ship out of the metal i think u have lots of time to make a memorial to remember all those ppl who dies in the attacks,, maybe the government is just trying to say, war b4 humans, and money to fuel the hate!

The planners of the new buildings aka Larry "pull it" Silverstein and co. (since they aren't really rebuilding) under estimated 'the need' to clean up the site so they could 'put back' the office space (which they took), or in other words, they under estimated the extent of the contamination and side effects of the cool down from the nuclear event.

Constructing on the site of a nuclear event is not recommended. It's obviously going to create some uniquely challenging and perhaps unforeseen obstacles making construction somewhat limited or stunted, after all, you need a solid foundation on which to start!

For example, after detonation a large cavity may of been created below the construction site filled with a once molten material, such effect may have implications on the grounding of the building.

Also, any remaining residue produced from this unconventional blast may impair the buildings performance if it were to accidently re-ignite hence the need for the constant flow of water and access to it into the footprints to lower the risk of spontaneous combustion spreading to the rest of the site.