The 9/11 Post 11807


Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.

I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.

I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.

The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.

I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.

The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.

Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.

In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.

But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.

(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).


11,807 thoughts on “The 9/11 Post

1 2 3 4 5 134
  • Richard Robinson

    “I started this thread so that those commenters who complain when I delete irrelevant 9/11 posts on other threads, can have a full say and not complain about being censored.”

    Is this a slippery slope that ends up with threads about who murdered Princess D., whether the alien space lizards are in league with the little green men / Prince Philip / both of these, was it the Illuminati or the Freemasons who killed Kennedy, and any other gibberish anybody feels like making themselves a bore over in any other thread ?

    People can get a thread here on their very own obsessions just by disrupting every other conversation ? There doesn’t have to be any end to this gameplaying at all, so long as gameplayers get what they come for.

    Tell them to set up their own blogs and see what comments they get.

  • Tim Groves

    “With all respect, “cui bono” isn’t a particularly useful starting principle given that those responsible don’t always know how things would turn out.”

    With out a great deal of respect, but I’m feeling generous enough not to errupt into outright insults just now, you do have the makings of what might grow up to be a point (if you give it a few years of intensive loving care) about “cui bono”. However, “cui bono” is the starting point for almost all criminal investigations where something was dun and we dunno who dunnit, innit?

    On the other hand, while we’re going into Latin phrases, I think we should also consider Cui’s brother, “Sony Bono”. Did he really just ski into that tree or was there more to it?

    The point is, my Irate Noodle, are you seriously suggesting that we dispense with “cui bono” as a principle of criminal investigation after all these millennia, or are you merely trying to make a single-case exception for 9/11? Riddle me that. And while were on the subject, would you like the laws of physics to be suspended for the big day too?

  • ady

    Why wouldn’t the US government encourage the 911 Truth movement. Never mind the

    $708 billion Pentagon budget.

  • Craig

    Sam,

    you believe that

    the whole 9/11 project is intrinsically linked (in ways that will never become fully known as well as the more obvious ones – see Chilcot eg.) to all else you honestly blog about.

    You are entitled to believe that. others believe that the Protocols of Zion, Bilderberg, Templars, Freemasons and various other permutations are intrinsically linked to everything.

    The idea that an underlying obsession – sorry cause :-), explains everything is not in my view in any of these cases sufficiently plausible to make it always on-topic. So off-topic deletion will apply.

  • Tim Groves

    “Is this a slippery slope that ends up with threads about who murdered Princess D., whether the alien space lizards are in league with the little green men / Prince Philip / both of these, was it the Illuminati or the Freemasons who killed Kennedy, and any other gibberish anybody feels like making themselves a bore over in any other thread ?”

    That’s why Aristotle advocated the golden mean. Craig is doing his best to find a solution midway between total censorship and total anarchy. Let’s give him three cheers for that. You wouldn’t want to live in a world without any Gibberish at all, would you? Nor Balderdash, nor Bilge, nor Tosh, nor Gobbledegook, nor Piffle. Surely these delightful minority languages deserve to be treasured and protected?

  • glenn

    Shoddy buildings like those were bound to come down sooner or later, so what’s all the fuss about?

  • chris, glasgow

    As someone who has is an architect and and has a lot of knowledge regarding structure of a building i can confirm to you that it is entierly possible for a building to collapse when a plane is crashed into it. Skyscrapers are built with specific heavy loading but they are not built to take the impact of a 50 to 80 ton plance crashing into the side of them (how often does it happen?). The structure is usually fire proofed for at least 2hrs in a large building like this which gives enough time to evacuate everyone before the structural integrty is affected by the blaze. however, if the structure is damaged then this will reduce the fire resistance dramatically and reduce the structural integrity dramatically.

    The impact and extra weight of the plane on the building alone could potentially bring it down but add fire to it and there is no doubt that it would collapse.

    I don’t know a lot about explosive used in demolition so I will not comment on that theory although it seems doubtful as most demolition that I have seen you can see explosions from a mile away even if they’re in a huge plume of smoke.

    Also I would like to make the point that David Ray Griffin is a theologist not a structural engineer or architect.

    I know there are a lot of engineers and architect out there that believe the truther theory but from my experience there are a lot of crap architect and engineers who are desperate to promote themselves. Of the 1000 people signed up to the AE9/11truth website I haven’t seen one notable architect to give it credibility, most are students with architecture degrees. Also most of the engineers are mechanical, software or electrical all of whom have little or no structural engineering experience.

    If you asked the majority of experienced architects and engineers what they thought I can bet you would get a similar answer to mine.

  • Frazer

    @Tim GrovesYes there were puffs of air exiting sides of the building as it collapses. This is air compression caused by the buildings internal collapse and air bieng forced out of it through lift shafts,stairwells etcIf explosives were used, any demolition expert would have spotted it. Mind you, I keep an open mind on the subject.

  • Vronsky

    Bigfoot isn’t a conspiracy theory, is it? But as people like Frazer so often want to conflate it with alternative accounts of 9/11, let’s accept it as such anyway. Along with the faked moon landings, the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, lizard people, the Reichstag Fire and the Kennedy assassination.

    But among all these 9/11 has a unique feature, aside from its obviously very grave political implications: it is the only case where evidence of at least one claim made by the conspiracy theorists is absolutely incontrovertible, and this claim alone almost inevitably requires involvement by elements of the US government or ‘security’ services.

    It is physically impossible for WTC1 or WTC2 to have fallen as a result of the incidents we all witnessed. WTC7, though often touted by the ‘Truth’ movement as a smoking gun is in fact a red herring – the extent of damage to WTC7 is unknown and therefore no firm conclusions can be drawn as to why it collapsed.

    However I can sympathise with Craig’s position: he is a public figure and many have been ruined by ridicule or slander for expressing doubts on the official account of 911. If I were in his position I too would be very careful how I expressed myself. I have watched with great embarrassment people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn simply evade the question – it doesn?t matter, they say. Wow! The slaughter by a state of 3000 of its own citizens in order to start wars which have killed millions is ‘unimportant’, a mere distraction from more useful activities? Chomsky and Zinn ordinarily occupy a much more radical position on the political spectrum than does Craig, and if there are things that they are scared to say, let?s not be too sore on Craig.

    The great fear of angrysoba and his sponsors is that their strategy of suppression by ridicule, powerful though it is, might fail. It is quite a vulnerable strategy, as it is only necessary for a few prominent and respectable people to say that it is absolutely obvious that the two towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and then others like Craig will soon join them. There are now over 1000 architects and structural engineers who say that the towers could not have fallen for the reasons given, and controlled demolition is not just the most plausible hypothesis for their failure, but the only one. But you are required to believe that this sober array of masters degrees and doctorates are just a lot ?foaming, swivel-eyed conspiraloons?, to borrow a phrase from angrysoba.

    That the official account of 9/11 has survived so long says a great deal about the nature of our public institutions ?” but that?s another deeply worrying matter.

  • MJ

    “This is air compression caused by the buildings internal collapse and air bieng forced out of it through lift shafts,stairwells etc”

    What air compression? The building was destroyed floor by floor from the top down. Each floor was converted to dust, which went outwards and upwards. The weight bearing down on the lower floors was diminishing as time went on.

    “If explosives were used, any demolition expert would have spotted it”

    There is a widespread view that thermite was used, which is not an explosive. It just cuts through steel very quickly and efficiently.

  • Mark Golding - Children of Iraq

    MJ,

    A reasoned analysis and we have evidence from a British IT manager about the shut-downs for cabling.

    Angrysoba,

    I have seen your type of post so many times, it attempts to draw posters into a perpetual circle, your ‘cui bono’ is fog to induce the fog lights, trouble is when the fog is cleared those lights become an irritant.

  • chris, glasgow

    Vronsky,

    As i said previously have a look at those degrees of the 1000 architects and engineers. There are no notable figures and a lot of the architects are not fully qualified and registered. This means they are probably students who don’t really know that much about construction of skyscrapers.

    Also as i said before there are a lot of mechanical, electrical and software engineers who I can bet know very little about the structure of a skyscraper. Also just rememeber that there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of architect and engineers working throughout the world and only 1000 have signed up to this. thats not a lot…

  • chris, glasgow

    “There is a widespread view that thermite was used, which is not an explosive. It just cuts through steel very quickly and efficiently”

    So does a plane flying at a couple of hundred miles an hour.

  • MJ

    “I can confirm to you that it is entierly possible for a building to collapse when a plane is crashed into it”

    Chris from Glasgow: would you care to cite one example when a skyscraper has collapsed as a consequence of being hit by a plane (it has happened before) or, for that matter, as a result of fire?

  • MJ

    “So does a plane flying at a couple of hundred miles an hour”

    But that only accounts for the area of the impact, not the whole building.

  • angrysoba

    Orwell: “How is it possible for four sets of hijackers to take control of four planes and fly them for over 40 minutes within the USA domestic airspace and not be intercepted by fighter aircraft?”

    This is misleading as it suggests that there was an interval of forty minutes between the military being aware of a particular hijacking and the planes crashing.

    “The USA is the most technologically militarised country in the world. It is beyond any belief that the airforce would not have been on to them within ten minutes if normal operational procedures were followed.”

    I don’t know where you get that impression. The only “alert” stations were at Otis and Langley with a pair of fighters each. Otis scrambled its fighters to look for AA11 only a few minutes before the airliner crashed into the first tower. The hijackers had switched off the transponders so it wasn’t immediately clear where the plane was. In fact, when Langley scrambled its fighters they too were looking for AA11 not realizing it no longer existed.

    “Also the pentagon has radar and anti-aircraft guns in place which would have shot the plane down before it hit. ”

    I didn’t know the Pentagon has anti-aircraft guns in place. Are you sure? Even if they did, it doesn’t mean they could have shot AA77 down. Eugene Corder tried to fly his Cessna into the White House and he didn’t get shot down.

  • CheebaCow

    Re: cui bono –

    A standard criminal investigation is usually limited to a few potential suspects or else is completely random event such a street mugging.

    Geo-political events such as 911 are by their very definition so much larger in scope and contain so many potential variables that questions like cui bono are bound to be overly simplistic.

    Damn……. I’m agreeing with angry on this one =P

  • MJ

    “it suggests that there was an interval of forty minutes between the military being aware of a particular hijacking and the planes crashing”.

    In the case of AA77 that is exactly the case. Yet Cheney waited until the plane was 10 miles away before ordering jets to be scrambled – and then from Langley AFB in Virginia rather than the nearby Andrews AFB in Washington, so were still over a hundred miles short of their target when AA77 hit the Pentagon.

  • Bert

    To quote from the Institution of Structural Engineers July 2992 paper ‘Safety in tall buildings’:

    “No _other_ case of a fire-protected steel-framed building collapsing totally in fire is believed to have occurred in spite of there having been several cases world wide of large uncontrolled fires in tall buildings, even where the fire has burnt out all combustible materials inside.”

    There are only therefore 3 cases of buildings which have _totally_ collapsed as a result of fire damage. These 3 cases occurred on 11th September 2001: WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7.

    ?It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.? ?” Upton Sinclair

  • crab

    Its also been expertly advised that a single plane impacting one area of the structure *did* cause the rapid collapses observed, yet to do something similar with explosives, would require a ton of semtex expertly distributed throughout the whole building.

    How much semtex put in just one place in the building would cause a similar amount of damage to a jet impact?

    Doesnt this question highlight the problem with the ‘controlled demo was too difficult, yet a plane crash did it’ ~idea ?

  • angrysoba

    “The great fear of angrysoba and his sponsors is that their strategy of suppression by ridicule, powerful though it is, might fail. It is quite a vulnerable strategy, as it is only necessary for a few prominent and respectable people to say that it is absolutely obvious that the two towers were brought down by controlled demolition, and then others like Craig will soon join them. There are now over 1000 architects and structural engineers who say that the towers could not have fallen for the reasons given, and controlled demolition is not just the most plausible hypothesis for their failure, but the only one. But you are required to believe that this sober array of masters degrees and doctorates are just a lot ?foaming, swivel-eyed conspiraloons?, to borrow a phrase from angrysoba.”

    Vronsky, are you being paid by Richard Gage 😉

    Just kidding, of course, but I do note that his website’s latest fund-raising is in aid of promoting the fact that there are now 1000 architects and engineers that believe in the Truth. Of course, as Chris from Glasgow has said these figures are a little cooked. For one thing Mr Gage had announced that this magic “Juggernaut” figure was due to have been arrived at much earlier and there had been a moving of the goalposts from degreed and licensed to simply degreed. Not to mention the fact that many of them are software engineers or in some other field that doesn’t really qualify them in the way that is suggested.

    I did go and listen to Richard Gage twice when he came on his AE911Truth junket to Japan. I got the impression of watching a stage magician sawing a lady in half. I certainly would have been as impressed as most of the audience if I didn’t happen to know how the sleight-of-hand trick was performed.

    I went there with an assistant professor of chemistry from Osaka University (which is one of the most prestigious universities in Japan). He doesn’t believe in 9/11 Truth and tells me that the physics lecturers and engineers there don’t either.

  • angrysoba

    CheebaCow: “Damn……. I’m agreeing with angry on this one =P”

    Hey! Don’t let it get you down. I appreciated our previous conversation.

  • angrysoba

    “In the case of AA77 that is exactly the case. Yet Cheney waited until the plane was 10 miles away before ordering jets to be scrambled – and then from Langley AFB in Virginia rather than the nearby Andrews AFB in Washington, so were still over a hundred miles short of their target when AA77 hit the Pentagon.”

    Was Andrews an “alert” site, MJ?

    I only ask because the 9/11 Commission Report which you have read and David Ray Griffin has written a book about suggests that Andrews didn’t have fighters on standby unlike Langley and Otis.

    Besides the hijacking of AA77 didn’t apparently get reported to the military early enough.

  • Frazer

    @MJ Actually not quite right. The WTC windows were hermetically sealed and could not be opened. When a building like this collapses air trapped within the structure has to go somewhere. In the case of the WTC towers it blew out from breaking windows as the floors above collapsed. It’s called compression. This accounts for the gusts of air mixed with dust and debris seen as the towers collapsed. Admittedly, to the untrained eye they would look like some type of explosion.

    As for the thermite charges, that is plain daft. Anyone with the faintest knowledge of modern day explosives would know you don’t try to bring down a structure with thermite.

    Good point though, but not realistic.

    @Vronsky. As a Scotsman, I have an inborn belief in Nessie, but for the rest I keep an open mind.

  • angrysoba

    Bert: “There are only therefore 3 cases of buildings which have _totally_ collapsed as a result of fire damage. These 3 cases occurred on 11th September 2001: WTC1, WTC2 & WTC7.”

    You seem to forget the plane collisions in the case of WTC1 and WTC2.

    You also seem to forget some other important sciency things:

    Fire burns.

    Fire can burn buildings.

    Fire can burn buildings quicker if they have no fireproofing or their fireproofing is compromised.

    Fire can burn buildings quicker if their fireproofing is compromised thanks to debris from a 110-story burning skyscraper falling on top of it and its sprinler system failing to work and allowed to burn for seven hours while the fire department is looking around in the rubble of WTC1 and WTC2 for their comrades.

    By the way, just because a steel-framed skyscraper hadn’t fallen down due mainly to fire damage didn’t mean it could not.

  • Carlyle Moulton

    Glen.

    Finally getting around to responding to your response to my post on 9/11 on the murdered Dr Kelly thread.

    I don’t believe the 5 points I listed are straw men, they are as much as I could remember of the arguments of people who are suspicious that 9/11 was an inside job. Can’t remember exactly where I came across the arguments, as I do a lot of internet browsing.

    1/ That the twin towers collapsed neatly in their own footprints as if in a perfectly done controlled demolition;

    Your answer: Limit the damage, given how much it would be already.

    My answer: Why bother trying to limit the damage? If you are going to stage a terrorist event, false flag or otherwise the more damage the better. If chunks of the building fall in the street or on adjacent buildings that is great. In any case suppose that the hypothetical person who planted explosives on the same level that was coincidentally hit by an aeroplane did want to minimize the damage, then why not omit the explosives

    and let the building remain standing after the fire caused by the coincidentally impacting air liner had burned out.

    I am sure that everyone in the world has seen the video of each tower collapsing as have I many times. If you look at these videos you will notice that the collapse of each tower began at one of the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fire. One has to ask, how did the people planting the explosives know at what levels in the buildings the partly trained pilots were going to crash the planes.

    The twin towers were constructed with most of the strength around the periphery so that there were no or very few internal columns to break up the floor space. My intuition and knowledge of physics tells me that as soon as the first vertical girder began to buckle it would transfer extra load to the girders nearest it which would then begin to buckle and this load transfer would very quickly run around the periphery of the building on that floor. Once a girder buckles that is it for its effectiveness in supporting anything above it. The whole N upper floors above the point of failure (I am not sure what the number N was and it was different for the North and South towers) would then fall at the rate of 1 earth gravity, ie. 980cm /sec/sec. After falling the height of one floor they would impact the floor below with a hammer blow. The impulsive force on the girders supporting the floor below would be many times the force that these normally support and would buckle them and so on.

    2/ That building 7 which was not hit also collapsed;

    My answer: It was close enough to be set on fire.

    Your answer: Lots of steel-framed buildings have caught on fire. Yet this one came down in near freefall speed, in a perfect demolition. Never happened before or after that day. You could also have added the random damage from the twin towers, but building 3 was far more badly damaged but didn’t spontaneously collapse.

    My response.The sprinklers in Building 7 were not working and so the fire burned on for much longer than it would have normally. In a normal fire sprinklers and fire fighters would have had an effect long before the fire would have had time to weaken the structure. I believe that building 7 also had most of its strength around the periphery so the same transfer of load from girder to adjacent girder around the periphery as with buildings 1 and 2 would have caused the neat implosion. Craig’s suggestion that maybe some of the building contractors had skimped on construction is plausible.

    3/ That there was nothing left of the large aeroplane that hit the Pentagon and that the debris resembled that of a smaller plane.

    My answer: When a big aeroplane hits a bigger building there is not going to be much left of the plane. Planes are rather fragile things really compared to buildings.

    Your answer: You should always expect to see lots of wreckage (it would not vapourise), seats, luggage, and dead passengers. We saw a few randomly strewn little bits of metal. Same with the Pennsylvania crash. Strange too that the fragile plane – your term – punched such a hole through reinforced concrete like that. Was the nosecone solid iron, maybe?

    My response. Most of the aircraft would have penetrated the Pentagon and the aircraft debris would be intermixed with the building debris. Most aircraft that hit the ground do not intersect buildings, therefore the aircraft does not get broken into small chunks, an aircraft hitting a building is a different matter. Even seats and passengers would have splattered by impact with the building. You are under the impression that the fragile aircraft structure could not penetrate the stronger building structure. You are under the wrong impression the relevant factors are momentum = mass X velocity and energy equal 0.5 Mass X Velocity Squared. A Boeing 757, a 100 tonne airliner impacting at 300kph has a lot of mass and a lot of energy. Even 100 tones of water hitting at 300 kilometeres per hour would have done the same amount of damage to the building.

    In the case of the WTC the aircraft were Boeing 767s whose takeoff weights exceed 200 tonnes.

    A lot of people point to the small size of the engine fan visible in the Pentagon debris and suggest that it came from a smaller remote controlled Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. I believe most airliners contain a small gas turbine in the tail to generate power while on the ground and the main engines are off. This small fan disc is in my opinion from that tail generator which may have been far enough back to for some of its parts to survive as recognizable.

    4/ That it was physically impossible to fly an aeroplane into the Pentagon after clearing some obstacles that were in the way and were not damaged;

    My answer: It might not be easy to do while respecting the control limits of the plane, but these guys did not need the plane afterwards and would not care if the overstrained it by suddenly initiating a steep dive after clearing the obstacle.

    Your answer: “It might not be easy” – you don’t say! Ask any real pilot just how probable it is a guy barely competent to fly a 1-engined Cessna pulled that stunt off. Try this: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

    I find it hard to take your answer seriously, in all fairness. I can just imagine the planning:

    Ahmed: It’ll never take that kind of maneuver, even if we have a skilled enough pilot! In the name of the Prophet, please – just crash the thing into the centre of the Pentagon, that will do surely!

    B. Laden: No. It must hit that precise point, and the plane might be all knackered the moment after it’s finished performing that tremendous stunt, but we don’t care about that! Ha ha ha ha ha!

    My response. Experiment trumps theory. Some people say that it was impossible to hit the Pentagon with a Boeing 757 after clearing certain obstacles, that is what theory says but obviously something pretty big hit the Pentagon without hitting the earlier obstacles and if it was not the flight 777 a Boeing 757 then what the hell was it and where the inferno is flight 777 and its passengers?

    5/ That burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel and cause a steel building to collapse.

    My answer: Untreated steel might not melt, but it would lose the necessary strength (paraphrasing quite a bit).

    Your answer: Many thousands of tons of interconnected steel acts as an enormous heatsink. Most of the fuel burned off in the first few seconds (in the case of the second crash, outside of the building in a huge fireball). A dirty flame will not produce enough heat to appreciably weaken even a small amount of detached steel, let alone bring a vast structure up to the temperatures required to initiate a collapse.

    Planes are not fueled to capacity when taking domestic flights, that would be a huge weight burden. They take not much more than they need, plus a reasonable safety margin.

    My response.

    Most of the fuel would not have burned off in the first few seconds. Combustion requires two things, fuel and oxygen and the initial flare was limited by the amount of oxygen available. If all the fuel did burn in one or two seconds that would have been a colossal fire ball equivalent to a fuel air bomb or 30 or 40 tonnes of TNT. Only a small amount that could vaporise burned in the first few seconds, the rest dripped through the broken floors of the tower pooling on those floors that did not break and acting as kindling to ignite everything combustible that was already in the building.

    the maximum fuel capacity of a Boeing 767 200 is 90,000 litres. Lets assume it was only carrying 12,000 litres this would still be ten tonnes of fuel.

    As for the heat sink idea it would not be as effective as you think. Girders are long and thin and heat does not propagate that well along long thin things. The fire in any case went on long enough to overload any theoretical heat sink.

    My conclusion “In my view before 9/11, anyone designing a building capable of withstanding the impact of a jet liner would have been crazy, I think the expectation that the WTC towers should have remained standing is crazy.”

    Your answer: As it happens, the designers allowed for _multiple crashes_ of the heaviest airliners at that time. Don’t forget the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber and is still standing.

    Like it or not, the case it not cut and dried, and anyone who calls doubters/ sceptics “crazy” for not finding the Official Story obvious has clearly not looked into it that hard.

    My response.

    Air liners are getting bigger and faster. If you design a building to resist the impact of the biggest airliner available today there is no guarantee that it will resist the impact of the biggest aircraft of ten years in the future. Maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 707 is about 100 tonnes that of a Boeing 767-200 is more than 200 tonnes, that of a 747-400 is over 400 tonnes and that of an Airbus A380 is 560 tonnes.

1 2 3 4 5 134

Comments are closed.