ATS: Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize Relating to WTC Collapse

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So are there 50,000 people working at WTC at 3 am in the morning?

Speaking as someone whoa has worked a number of projects in large office buildings on off shifts, I can tell you that even though there are fewer people in the building at off hours, it is actually harder to work during those shifts. Elevator access is electronically controlled and limited to freight elevators (with a union operator). Stairwell use is not allowed, and the building engineering staff is very much aware of who is working where.

The WTC towers housed a number of financial corporations. Those types of companies are fanatical about security. Most of them have their own security systems separate from the building.

Originally posted by Indigo_ChildSo are there 50,000 people working at WTC at 3 am in the morning? You also have not noted that I am not exactly an avid supporter of the controlled demolition theory.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

I never said that. I said that there was heavy traffic during the day and that the building never closed. Initial estimates were 10,000 dead and that was low because the business day had just begun.

Tell you what, come to my building after business hours and attempt to leave a suspicious device hidden on one of the floors. My building's security sucks and you still won't be able to pull it off.

Your argument has no basis once you start talking about planting and hiding explosives after hours, when the building is closed. DG's suggestion that the building was built with explosives is more plausible.

Originally posted by St Udio
``

?? why not find-locate any other buildings, anywhere in the world,
that used the (at the time) unorthodox architecture !!!

?? most likely, there are no other WTC type constructions anywhere !!
~~

Actually the tube structure is one of the more common structure types for very tall buildings. The Sears Tower uses a variety known as the �bundled tube�

Furthermore, I have personally seen the use of double thick drywall core systems in a number of buildings.

No two buildings are alike in every aspect. Even the two WTC towers had minor differences. However the design elements that were used in the WTC have been repeated in many other buildings throughout the world.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Anyways....i don't want this to turn into another pissing contest DG...

Of course you do... I have never seen a political post of yours that wasn't intended to create a pissing contest....

Originally posted by Muaddib
What do you have to corroborate your "claim"?

If you had anything to back-up your claim, you would be $100,000 richer. C'mon guy, it should be really easy to back-up the government position. The fact is that you cannot do so.
.

Originally posted by Crakeur
DG's suggestion that the building was built with explosives is more plausible.

It is still one of the stupidest ideas that I have ever heard.




[edit on 17-12-2004 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Crakeur
DG's suggestion that the building was built with explosives is more plausible.

It is still one of the stupidest ideas that I have ever heard.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by HowardRoark]

Stupid? LOL...its a good thing i;m not the suicidal type...

There's a lot of s-p-e-c-u-l-a-t-i-o-n out there about this subject.

related searches
world trade center photos


WTC 7 'Pulled' By Silverstein, FDNY - Were Towers 'Pulled' Too?
... theory that bombs had been planted inside the twin towers designed to complete
... Not long after the buildings were built, the WTC owners retained the ...
www.rense.com... - Cached


Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow - Architect's Analysis
... People's queries were mainly about why the twin towers fell all of a lump ...
in the US that terrorists had planted explosives in advance and set them ...
english.people.com.cn... - Cached


2 Planes Hit Twin Towers at the Weakest Spot
... discounted the notion that additional explosives had been planted around the
... When they were built in 1970, the World Trade Center towers were the ...
www.latimes.com... - Cached


Experts agree that steel in WTC towers did NOT collapse on 9/11 ...
... the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. ...
Either bombs were on the planes or explosives were planted in the buildings

I'm not pulling my information out of a hat.

No one is saying that the airplane impact knocked the towers down. The buildings did withstand the impact. The fact that they did not immediately collapse is proof of that. The impact did, however, cuase extensive damage to the building structures.

The structural damage it did was seen by everyone. It impacted somewhere near the top floors. That would have not have affected the rest of the steel frames.

Clarification: There is a mistaken beliefe that the maximum temperature released by burning jet fuel is less then 500 degrees C. This is simply not true. The amount of heat release in a combustion reaction is a fixed amount given the quantity of the inital reactants. Heat an temeprature are not exactly the same thing, however.

For every combustion reaction, there is a discreet amount of heat released. This value is expressed in joules not degrees. This can also be expressed in Btu values. That is why when you buy a new furnace, you don�'t look at the maximum temperature it can deliver, but the Btus.

The adiabatic combustion temperature for a fuel is the theoretical maximum temperature that a combustion process can release (i.e. if all the heat released is converted strictly to kinetic energy (temperature))

As you can see form this table, the adiabatic combustion temperature for jet fuel is 2300 K ( 2026 C, or 3680 F)!

That is interesting, but something is slightly wrong with it. It seems nearly every fuel has a adiabatic combustion temperature of 2000+ including wood and coal. So, are you telling me, if the fire was fuelled by coal or wood, it would have melted the steel too in some 50 min?

I do not dispute that a wood or coal fire can reach very hot temperatures that can melt steel. However, my friend, it's takes several hours and requires constant blowing(oxygen) and a very specialized and closed environment; a furnace.

Actually the truth is you have misunderstood what an adiabatic combustion temperature is and nor do you seem to have any knowledge of where this kind of property is used. The adiabatic temperature is the temperature a substance/fuel burns at while exchanging no heat with its surroundings (enthalpy remains constant). This kind of specialized environment exists in a furnace or blast chamber, or indeed in rocket engine. Not in an office building You understimate my scientific knowledge.

There was not enough fuel, oxygen and further thermal energy was being lost due to conduction in the steel frames. This is further corroborated by firefighters who only claim average office fires and the eye witness/video accounts that show mostly billowing smoke.

Further, if intense fires were raging on many floors, why did they not cause flash point fires on other floors?

It would have taken several hours for the jet fuel, most(if not all) of which was spent in the fireball to have melted the steel, that is of course, provided it could burn that long. As one scientist said "WTC burnt too hot and too fast to be jet fuel" I think the DEW superheating makes more sense. However, I got to admit, this is the first proper rebuttal I have heard for the conspiracy theories. It's a shame it's wrong though.

However, suppose I give you the benefit of the doubt, and accept the fires caused everything to vaporize into dust. How do you explain WTC-7 which collapsed exactly the same way, even though it was not even hit.

As for the $100,000 prize, it is a sucker bet. They are asking you to prove a negative, which logically can't be done.

Actually, it's not. You are proving a "positive" and that is that WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 could have collapsed due due to the impact of 767's and that physics permits it. If you can show us that, we might even believe you, and you would be $100,000 better off.

However, even if you did mangage to prove it, even though that seems beyond your ability, I would still maintain that 9/11 was a government staged event, because of the sheer logistics, illogicalities and politics of it.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The structural damage it did was seen by everyone. It impacted somewhere near the top floors. That would have not have affected the rest of the steel frames.

all that was needed was a weakening in that area. The top collapses downward and gravity does the rest.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Speaking as someone whoa has worked a number of projects in large office buildings on off shifts, I can tell you that even though there are fewer people in the building at off hours, it is actually harder to work during those shifts. Elevator access is electronically controlled and limited to freight elevators (with a union operator). Stairwell use is not allowed, and the building engineering staff is very much aware of who is working where.

The WTC towers housed a number of financial corporations. Those types of companies are fanatical about security. Most of them have their own security systems separate from the building.

You are completely missing the point. The point is that can a government special operation to rig the building with bombs be executed in the middle of the night. I would say yes, if it had an elite government intelligence network doing it, it would be possible indeed. Circumventions of security are not a rare phenomena. Ever seen a jewel thief at work?

How many people would be working at WTC at 3 am in the morning?

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

there are a minimum of 12 people working in my building at all times. 45 floors but only 5000 sq feet per floor. tiny compared to the wtc and there are two people at the door keeping track of poeple coming and going.

nobody would get inside with all the explosives and the gear without someone noticing and they are not the brightest group.

there's no way it could have happened. it's the weak link in your theory.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
That is interesting, but something is slightly wrong with it. It seems nearly every fuel has a adiabatic combustion temperature of 2000+, including wood and coal. So, are you telling me, if the plane was coal or wood-powered, it would have melted the steel too in some 50 min?

Sigh. Once again let me repeat myself.

IT WAS NOT NESSESSARY TO MELT THE STEEL. STRUCUTRL STEEL LOSES A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS YEILD STRENGTH AT TEMPERATURES WELL BELOW THE MELTING POINT. I don�t want to yell, but you keep insisting that the collapse was caused by melting steel. That is not the case.

I do not dispute that a wood or coal fire can reach very hot temperatures that can melt steel. However, my friend, it's takes several hours and requires constant blowing(oxygen) and a very specialized and closed environment; a furnace.

Let�s look at the total fuel load on the impact floors shall we?

8,000 gallons of jet A fuel (kerosene)
1 aircraft (interior cabin components, plastics, seat upholstery etc)
two or three fully built out office floors (Cubicles, desks, computers, carpeting, chairs, filing cabinets, ceiling tiles, wiring, etc. )

Note I am not even dealing with the fact that the fire spread upward.

That is still a good size fuel load, consider the size of the building. Those office floors were huge.

Have you ever seen a coal fired power plant? How about pictures of steel mills from the 1800�s. What is the dominant feature of these facilities? Huge, tall chimneys! Have you ever wondered why they built these facilities with these huge chimneys?

It is actually very simple. There is a phenomena called the �stack effect.� at work in those huge smoke stacks. What happens is that when the air in the chimney gets warmer than the air outside the chimney, is starts to rise up. As it rises it expands, pushing the air above it up faster. This creates a draft into the bottom of the chimney. A huge inrush of air feeds the bottom of the chimney.

That is how they supplied the air needed to burn the coal as hot as they could in those old boilers and furnaces. The taller the chimney, the stronger the draft. This draft is present even when there is no fire in the boiler.

Anyone who has ever worked in the core area of a large high-rise building will quickly tell you that the stack effect is still present in these spaces. It is an effect that HVAC system designers have to work around. You may have even experienced this effect yourself when getting into a high-rise elevator at the ground floor, you can often hear the wind whistling around the elevator doors into the shaft.

When the airplanes hit the buildings, they smashed through the core areas, breaking open the core walls around the air plenums, elevator shafts, pipe chases, stairwells, etc. Thus a number of �chimneys� were created. There was plenty of oxygen feeding these fires though the stack effect.

Actually the truth is you have misunderstood what an adiabatic combustion temperature is and nor do you seem to have any knowledge of where this kind of property is used. The adiabatic temperature is the temperature a substance/fuel burns at while exchanging no heat with its surroundings (enthalpy remains constant). This kind of specialized environment exists in a furnace or blast chamber, or indeed in rocket engine. Not in an office building

You understimate my scientific knowledge.

No, as I stated, this is a theoretical maximum temperature of the combustion process. That is if all of the heat energy released by the combustion reaction were to be converted into kinetic energy, the resultant products would be at that temperature. Obviously, as I said, this is not the case.

What is important to remember is the heat (not the temperature) release by a reaction is a constant. If you have only a small amount of fuel , let�s say a candle, most of that heat will be dissipated to the surrounding environment pretty quickly. Thus you can wave your hand through a candle flame even though the flame temperature is over 1000 degrees. If you have a larger amount of fuel, the size of the surrounding environment impacted by the heat is going to be larger. At some point, the heat energy will build up faster then it can dissipate, and objects in surrounding environment will reach temperatures in the 1000 degree range.

Remember, all of that heat energy has to go somewhere. If you argue that all of the fuel burned up in the first 10 minutes (an absurd assertion, BTW), then you have to account for all of that heat energy.

Even if we limit the amount of jet fuel in the building to 1,000 gallons after the impact, at around 140,000 BTU per gallon, that is 140 million BTU! That is a lot of heat energy!!!!! Where did it all go?

further thermal energy was being lost due to conduction in the steel frames.

If the fires were small or typical office fires, maybe. But like I said, even if only a small portion of the jet fuel remained in the building, there was a HUGE heat load present. At some point, the heat buildup was greater than the loss through dissipation.

Further, if intense fires were raging on many floors, why did they not cause flash point fires on other floors?

If you look at the video of the building just before the collapse, you will see that fires were burning on floors WAY above the impact points.

It would have taken several hours for the jet fuel, most(if not all) of which was spent in the fireball

No, that is simply not true all of the fuel was not expended in the fireball. Yes, some of the fuel was spent in the fireball, but over 8,000 gallons? No. a couple of hundred gallons, maybe, a thousand tops. Even if half of the fuel (the right wing) was in the fireball, the other wing hit the core area squarely.

As for WTC 7, there is credible evidence that the building was structurally damaged at some point during the morning, probably as a result of the adjacent tower collapse. Maybe there was a resonance issue in the �bathtub� during the collapse, Maybe the building was hit by debris, I don�t know. A number of the surrounding buildings were also significantly damaged by the tower collapses.

Once the structural damage happened, once the fire fighters �pulled� out of the building, after the building burned for seven hours, I do not find it all that surprising that the building collapsed.


[edit on 17-12-2004 by HowardRoark]

Howard,

I agree the melted stell issue should be declared DOA. An exhaustive analysis plus eyewitness reports etc, shows alot of bent steel, but NO NONE, ZERO reports of large puddles of slag anywhere. Steel like butter looses stregth well befor eits melting point. Also, the impact of the plane according to alot of engineers, including my dad who was a civil enginner, may have had a sand blast effect and stripped off the fireprofing in the area thus exposing the steel structure directly to the heat and flame front.

One other note: Remember that desgin theory looks good on paaper, but it does not always translate to direct world experience. The thought they had calculated for a 707 plus some margin, but no one had ever crashed one directly into a steel structure at a high rate of speed. The only other note, is that the 707 was over constructed and while lighter perhpas a more robust design than the 767? Any thoughts on how this would change the equation?

IT WAS NOT NESSESSARY TO MELT THE STEEL. STRUCUTRL STEEL LOSES A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ITS YEILD STRENGTH AT TEMPERATURES WELL BELOW THE MELTING POINT. I don�t want to yell, but you keep insisting that the collapse was caused by melting steel. That is not the case.

Have you heard that the louder the people shout the lesser they know.
It appears that is true here too. Have you completely forgotten that the evidence shows molten steel burning for several weeks, and evidence of vaporized humans, steel and concrete.

When the airplanes hit the buildings, they smashed through the core areas, breaking open the core walls around the air plenums, elevator shafts, pipe chases, stairwells, etc. Thus a number of �chimneys� were created. There was plenty of oxygen feeding these fires though the stack effect.

I had to delete the rest of the dribble in your quotation. All that is, is speculation, and not something I can actually verify and apply the events of WTC too. If there was an an abundance of oxygen, the fires would have been seen burning hot. That was not the case; they were billowing sooty smoke, chocking due to lack of air. You also selectively ignored the testimonies of the actual firefighters.

What is important to remember is the heat (not the temperature) release by a reaction is a constant. If you have only a small amount of fuel , let�s say a candle, most of that heat will be dissipated to the surrounding environment pretty quickly. Thus you can wave your hand through a candle flame even though the flame temperature is over 1000 degrees. If you have a larger amount of fuel, the size of the surrounding environment impacted by the heat is going to be larger. At some point, the heat energy will build up faster then it can dissipate, and objects in surrounding environment will reach temperatures in the 1000 degree range.

Can you wave your hands through 100 candle flames burning at 1000 degrees?

Even if we limit the amount of jet fuel in the building to 1,000 gallons after the impact, at around 140,000 BTU per gallon, that is 140 million BTU! That is a lot of heat energy!!!!! Where did it all go?

Where are you getting your figures from? And where is your calculations showing what you are trying to say(it's so vague, I am still amiss) Thin air?

further thermal energy was being lost due to conduction in the steel frames.

If the fires were small or typical office fires, maybe. But like I said, even if only a small portion of the jet fuel remained in the building, there was a HUGE heat load present. At some point, the heat buildup was greater than the loss through dissipation.

No it wasn't. None of what you are saying makes sense.

If you look at the video of the building just before the collapse, you will see that fires were burning on floors WAY above the impact points.

Show; don't tell

No, that is simply not true all of the fuel was not expended in the fireball. Yes, some of the fuel was spent in the fireball, but over 8,000 gallons? No. a couple of hundred gallons, maybe, a thousand tops. Even if half of the fuel (the right wing) was in the fireball, the other wing hit the core area squarely.

We saw the plane disintergrate into a whole ball of fire. The jet fuel is carried in the plane. How do you suppose thousands of gallons were left?

In the south tower plane attack, the plane hit at an acute angle to the edge, and the fireball and all of the fuel exploded outside of the building. Yet, it was the first to fall.

As for WTC 7, there is credible evidence that the building was structurally damaged at some point during the morning, probably as a result of the adjacent tower collapse. Maybe there was a resonance issue in the �bathtub� during the collapse, Maybe the building was hit by debris, I don�t know. A number of the surrounding buildings were also significantly damaged by the tower collapses.

In other words; you have no idea. I have seen mathematical and physical analysis from experts that show how it could have collapsed. Can you show me any proper physical and mathematical analysis that shows it could have collasped from falling debris. Which by the way fell inwards and into fine powder. Further, there were towers closer to WTC 1 and WTC 2 than WTC 7. There goes that theory.

Mate, we are going in endless circles, but the truth is the same; your physics does not check out. And the rest is speculation.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

An actual experts opinion from an executive of a company who certified the steel to be used in WTC:

And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3,000 F. Why Brown would imply that 2,000 F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.�

Referring to the summer 2003 results of Gayle�s own published metallurgical tests, Ryan noted that �weak steel� was virtually ruled out at that time as a �contributing factor in the collapse.�

Ryan wrote to Gayle: �Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500 degrees (250 C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.�

Source: www.americanfreepress.net...

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]

Hello, sorry Fred if i turned this into another 911 debate, it was probably me with my comments. Humble apologies boss if that was not your intention but you seem happy to run with it. My childrens children will still be talking about this. Crakeur. I have a link. There is a date but it is a bit iffy. you write your dates different in the U.S. www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg111800.html I agree with the vortex thing. I have worked in power stations on cooling towers. They are also built that high to keep discharge away. I have watched the videos of the firefighters as many people have & heard them say that the fires were containable. They also heard explosions. I doubt that they are lying. The heat would have dissapated along the columns, steel soaks up heat like a 15 year old boy eats popcorn. Some of the people here are pretty smart with the maths & technical stuff. I know some of that but i am basically an on the tools tradey. In the end you can have all the bosses in the world but someone has to swing the hammer. I watched 911 on late night t.v. & the memories of those people choosing to jump still haunt me. For months after the official story came out i thought about it while i was working trying to imagine the scenario in my mind. Your government & mine are the greatest of friends & i would love to believe they are honest with us. However i came out the other end in total disbelief. The United States was built by men who were seekers of truth, men of principle. I believe that spirit still exists. Even if Jimmy Walter is wrong, he put his hand in his hip pocket to help search.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The structural damage it did was seen by everyone. It impacted somewhere near the top floors. That would have not have affected the rest of the steel frames.

Remeber that the internal structures took the real beating not the ones were saw in the days after. A ATSNN story I posted a while back, said that scients studing the collapse seem to have found the bulge that preceded its collapse. As a floor failed the weight of it and the floor drove it down. the floors below could not support the weight and pancaked down. I believe that tall building are designed to do this. Had the toppled over, the loss of life may have bee much greater.

Edit: www.abovetopsecret.com... Its about how the intense flames spread the collapse of the WTC towers.



[edit on 12/17/04 by FredT]

wombat, that's nice but I would prefer a source of news that has some potential to be proven true.

I found a link on the net that says something, therefore it's true won't work for me.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Have you heard that the louder the people shout the lesser they know.
It appears that is true here too. Have you completely forgotten that the evidence shows molten steel burning for several weeks, and evidence of vaporized humans, steel and concrete.

Yes, the fires were burning for several weeks after the collapse. The collapse of the building liberated tons of potential energy and heat. There was also, literally tons of fuel, paper, jet fuel, etc. still trapped in the wreckage. Like an underground coal fire, this smoldered happily for weeks, in a nice insulated environment.

I had to delete the rest of the dribble in your quotation. All that is, is speculation, and not something I can actually verify and apply the events of WTC too. If there was an an abundance of oxygen, the fires would have been seen burning hot. That was not the case; they were billowing sooty smoke, chocking due to lack of air. You also selectively ignored the testimonies of the actual firefighters.

The stack effect is drivel?

It is not speculation, but a documented fact that the impact severed a number of elevator cables, sending the cars plumeting and killing the occupants.

Fire fighter quotations? How about this:

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

Note that the impact was least 4 floors above that on 78 but the fire walls into the stairwells were breached as low as 74.

Can you wave your hands through 100 candle flames burning at 1000 degrees?

Thank you, my point exactly. The quantity of burning material on the floors was high. You have office materials, airplane materials, residual fuel and a number of floors and walls that were broken, allowing the fire to spread and grow.

Even if we limit the amount of jet fuel in the building to 1,000 gallons after the impact, at around 140,000 BTU per gallon, that is 140 million BTU! That is a lot of heat energy!!!!! Where did it all go?

Where are you getting your figures from? And where is your calculations showing what you are trying to say(it's so vague, I am still amiss) Thin air?

From a number of sources. here are two

wtc.nist.gov...
www.pentoncmg.com...

both of these reports estimate the quantity of fuel on board the aircraft at impact from 31,000 to 38,000 liters (about 8,000 to 10,000 gallons.

the estimate of the fuel consumed in the fireball is around 3,000 gallons, or less then half of the total fuel consumed.

I do not agree with both of the reports on one issue. Both of these reports estimate the consumption rate of the remaining fuel on the floors based on fire pool data. While this may work in estimating how quickly a tanker spill will burn up, I do not agree with the underling assumption that the remaining fuel spread out in an even pool across the floor. Neither of these reports takes into account that significant areas of the floor slabs in the impact zone were destroyed, uplifted or otherwise distorted, this would have allowed deeper pools to form then estimated.


I stand corrected on one issue, kerosene is probably closer to 138,000 BTU per gallon, or about 8,900 kilocalories per liter.

further thermal energy was being lost due to conduction in the steel frames.

If the fires were small or typical office fires, maybe. But like I said, even if only a small portion of the jet fuel remained in the building, there was a HUGE heat load present. At some point, the heat buildup was greater than the loss through dissipation.

No it wasn't. None of what you are saying makes sense.

sure it does. you asked me earlier about the difference between a single candle and 1,000. Well what is the difference between a fire in a single wastebasket that spreads slowly across an office floor to one that engulfs the entire floor simultaneously? Even if the majority of the jet fuel did burn up in the first few minutes, it succeeded in igniting several floors at once.

In the south tower plane attack, the plane hit at an acute angle to the edge, and the fireball and all of the fuel exploded outside of the building. Yet, it was the first to fall.

Which do you think would be worse a knife stab in the stomach, or a slicing cut across the abdomen?

A greater percentage of the all important exterior columns were damaged in the south tower.

Mate, we are going in endless circles, but the truth is the same; your physics does not check out. And the rest is speculation.

I'll agree with you on the circles part.

But it is your Kung Fu that is weak.

Originally posted by FredT
One other note: Remember that desgin theory looks good on paaper, but it does not always translate to direct world experience. The thought they had calculated for a 707 plus some margin, but no one had ever crashed one directly into a steel structure at a high rate of speed. The only other note, is that the 707 was over constructed and while lighter perhpas a more robust design than the 767? Any thoughts on how this would change the equation?

Everyone likes to talk about the fact that the buildings were supposedly designed to withstand the impact of a 707, but few people really understand what that statement means.

First of all, the buildings were not designed to withstand the stated impact, rather once the design was chosen, a number of mathematical models were calculated to determine if the estimated impact forces would cause the structure to exceed its design criteria.

They did the same thing to determine if the buildings would withstand a 140 MPH hurricane wind. They calculated the lateral force on the building cuased by the hypothecical wind, and calculated the loadings on the structural members cause by that lateral force.

For the airplane impact, the only way they could have calculated the effect was to estimate the lateral force of the impact and determine if the building design could withstand that initial lateral force.

Remember that this was done in the era of adding machines and slide rules.

There is no possible way that anyone could estimate or calculate the extent of the structural damage caused by the impact.

WAY too much emphasis is placed on this design consideration. Obviously a lot of simplifications and assumptions were made.