September 11

[Fancy]

You don't speak for kompili and you're wrong. Any information I've read was about a plane coming in for a landing at a much reduced speed - that wasn't the case, in this case.

[averagejoe]

You don't speak for kompili and you're wrong.

I was pointing out at the incorrect statement you made.

fancy wrote: the towers weren't built to withstand that kind of damage.

I'm sorry you haven't researched this. Maybe you should try reading something before making such a statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_o ... ade_Center

NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200-page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the 1 WTC; the copy was lost in 7 WTC.

[averagejoe]

You don't speak for kompili and you're wrong. Any information I've read was about a plane coming in for a landing at a much reduced speed - that wasn't the case, in this case.

You sure changed your posting pretty fast.....

[Fancy]

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

[peaceseeker]

Because the buildings were built differently? The Pentagon is reinforced - the towers weren't built to withstand that kind of damage. But you knew that.

No fancy. the 2 towers were built to with stand a direct hit from a B-707.

Exactly, averagejoe. Further, Frank A. deMartini (Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management) believes the buildings 'probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid...and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting - it really does nothing to the screen netting'.

[Nebula]

Back on this one, huh? CTs get debunked on a topic, take a break then come back to it months later as if it's all new again.

Once again, although the designers of the towers did take into consideration a plane crash, they considered a not full aircraft hitting the tower at landing speed (they suspected the most likely scenario would be a plane coming into landing at one of the many airports around New York City hitting the towers). They did not take into account the possibility of a fully loaded, much larger aircraft slamming into the towers at hundreds of kilometres an hour.

[zyzzx]

Exactly, averagejoe. Further, Frank A. deMartini (Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management) believes the buildings 'probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid...and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting - it really does nothing to the screen netting'.

Exactly, peaseseeker. Further, once you add in 20,000 US Gallons of jet fuel and light that pencil on fire the intense grid of mosquito netting the structure tends to weaken and fail.

Apparently this theory was proven to be effective in bringing down two buildings on the same day.

[kompili]

Exactly, peaseseeker. Further, once you add in 20,000 US Gallons of jet fuel and light that pencil on fire the intense grid of mosquito netting the structure tends to weaken and fail.

But the plane entered the building before it exploded as you can see on the video I posted.

[kompili]

Once again, although the designers of the towers did take into consideration a plane crash, they considered a not full aircraft hitting the tower at landing speed (they suspected the most likely scenario would be a plane coming into landing at one of the many airports around New York City hitting the towers). They did not take into account the possibility of a fully loaded, much larger aircraft slamming into the towers at hundreds of kilometres an hour.

And a course, know one knew about this until after 9/11, then it came out that it could only protect against a small aircraft, is this right.

[Nebula]

And a course, know one knew about this until after 9/11, then it came out that it could only protect against a small aircraft, is this right.

You can twist things however you want. People can clearly see where you're coming from.

[zyzzx]

But the plane entered the building before it exploded as you can see on the video I posted.

Uhhuh, yeahhh... um... thanks so much for the update. I was not sure if there was an explosion followed by a fire or not. Golly, without your help I may have missed that one.

Now then, for the rest of you that can read words and stuff, I'll get back to before I was interupted...

20,000 US Gallons of jet fuel exploded and caught fire causing the structure to weaken, as peaceseeker had mentioned with his example of a screen on a door example. That day the same scenario was repeated twice in two seperate buildings of identical building methods.

Golly!

[goatboy]

*try again without the personal attack/Jo*

[vinnied]

There was three stories about vans being loaded with explosives on that day, and it is easy to get them mixed up.

1) van on King St. , not Israelis's, two middle east men, mural painted on the side, no explosives ( although initially it was reported to have exploded, no explosion), men released, mural on van was moving company logo for many years, note there is pictures of the van mural with airplane crashing into twin towers, the actual mural is of a plane flying over the twin towers. King street is about 20 blocks from WTC.

2) white van on NJ turnpike, 5 Israelies, reported to have explosives no explosives found, they were held for 71 days, interrogated etc, deported to Israel, these guys took pictures of WTC buildings, although reported to be a movie no movie camera found, but a 35mm camera with pictures found. One man identified as past Mossad agent, that is why they held them, FBI worried they were spying on USA not as part of 911. This was around 4pm that day.

3) van around Brooklyn tunnel (I believe) two middle east men, no explosives, this is the one the dog reacted to possible explosives having been in truck at one time, men released

Im afraid your wrong when it comes to the bomb sniffing dogs. Media reports i can find indicate the van with explosives in it was at or near the George Washington bridge. no reports of bomb sniffing dogs there although they did redact and change the story within 8 minutes of airing the original story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VX8ijYihU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrs4YasgTi0

According to the FBI files, and the link provided by Goatboy, scenario number two is the one the dogs reacted to possible explosives.
One more thing, this is the same van the bomb suits and explosive residue were found in

goatboys link.

Pretty good analysis of the whole truck bomb theory. Looks like a van may have been stopped but no explosives were in it. Nothing to point to anything out of the ordinary.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_truckload_of_explosives

[kompili]

Of course it would. Travelling at 600 mph, how long do you think it takes to travel 159 ft, the total length of a 767( it's actually a shorter length than that as there is nothing to explode until you reach the wings, which is where the fuel tanks are)? Answer, quicker than the ability to ignite the fuel and cause an explosion.

But yet at the Pentagon the wings folded up and went into the hole, here the whole plane went inside, wings and all. And the towers were build to keep planes from doing this. I find it kind of strange.

[Fancy]

But yet at the Pentagon the wings folded up and went into the hole, here the whole plane went inside, wings and all. And the towers were build to keep planes from doing this. I find it kind of strange.

Are you saying the Pentagon and the Towers were built identical? I find that strange.