The fireproofing that protects the steel is meant to protect it for 2 hours, not 7.

These questions have all been answered, but you conspiracy people are as bad as the fanatically religious; just keep plugging your ears and yelling, "la la la la, I can't hear you!"
>> ^Fade:

Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

was the wtc7 fire somehow magically hotter than all the other skyscraper fires that never resulted in a collapse?
Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

Why didn't this building collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

or this one?

http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

You clearly don't understand structural engineering so I seriously doubt you would have a firm grasp of rocket science.
>> ^Skeeve:

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.
So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:
I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

>> ^Fade:

I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.
http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE
I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?


No, you're completely ass backwards.

The burden is not on people to prove that the fires brought down the buildings. Two aeroplanes flew into the towers, they fell down.

The burden is on those that continue to wail that there was a secret conspiracy to plant explosives in the buildings and bring them down... AFTER some planes were flown into them.

The burden is ON YOU.

And any 'evidence' that the conspiracy theorists have brought up have been TIME AND AGAIN shown to be bullshit.

So, sorry, but you're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle.

Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is probably the one... we SAW the planes hit the towers, WTC7 was right next to them, sustained damage, fell down. Simplest explanation.

Add the planes being flown into the buildings on TOP of all the conspiracy bullshit and you've just made it FAR more complicated, FAR more unbelievable, and FAR more implausible.

And the facts do NOT support any of it.

I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.

http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE

I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?

>> ^Psychologic:

I suppose it's fitting that this is the first video I watched after a Hitchens video bashing people for wrapping anecdotes around a preconceived conclusion.
I wonder what it's supposed to sound like from the inside of a collapsing tower filled with hundreds of sealed rooms.


They didn't say they heard explosions while the tower collapsed. The lobby was blown out before the towers collapsed. If they were inside when the tower collapsed they wouldn't be on camera talking about it, they would be dead.
Even the third guy says the first explosion happen around the same time WTC2 was hit by the second jet. And towards the end of the clip, the second guy says "You people don't understand...there may be more, any one of these fucking buildings could blow up. This ain't done yet." And he was right: WTC7.

This is a parody of the truthers right?

The truthers find what the guy is saying to be just as ludicrous as the rest of us, right?

Sigh.

Fire codes were NOT designed to withstand the full impact of a loaded jet liner and resulting fires. The WTC7 building was NOT subject to a ordinary fire either. The force of the damage caused by the collapse of the other towers left WTC7 lower floors looking "like a bomb had gone off".

I suppose one hopes the truthers embrace this vid though, should reveal their insanity before their prey can get lured any further into the none sense.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 2 Badge!

It's fervor, not ferver.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

>> ^enoch:

then you misunderstood my answer.
ii was not attempting to conclude nor answer the impetus of possible conspiracy of either terrorists of muslim origin or a homegrown attack from within our own government.
i left that to you and duckman to argue.
my conclusion can be based on either scenario with the exact same outcome.
and in the context of those scenarios:
1.muslim attack by plane destroying the towers=government uses this time of fear and grief to enact the never-ending and vague "war on terror".
2.a government planned attack on its own people by demolition.using planes as a cover.which in turn the government uses this time of fear and grief to enact said "war on terror".
now this is where the argument and debate resides but the outcome is always the same.
along with the 'profit" and "gain" question.
maybe i am misunderstanding your question but history has shown that governments/kings and dictators have gone to elaborate lengths to confuse and exploit times of fear and grief to punch through unpleasant legislation.
lets remember that even by 2005 35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11 even though by that time the evidence clearly indicated that was not the case.
again i refer to history as my guide.


I think I understand your answer just fine, it just doesn't seem you were trying to answer my main question... Let me try and phrase it again and explain it more clearly.

I'm not asking why an inside entity would want to make the attacks, or where their profit in it would be. I repeat, that is not what I'm asking.

I am asking why any entity would choose the METHOD that the conspiracy crowd is proposing. I am asking where is the profit in pre-planting explosives in all three buildings AND later hijacking planes and crashing them into the same buildings? Where is the profit in that method?

I can't see any benefit, reason or rational explanation for why any entity would benefit from pursuing both causes. It is not a situation where one can act as 'insurance' against the other. They both can accomplish the goal all alone, and pursuing both just doubles the costs and risks of exposure or being caught.


35% of america believed that iraq had something to do with 9/11
I don't wanna perpetuate a tangent, but you may want to choose more specific language. Iraq wasn't directly responsible or even aware of planning for 9/11. Saddam did however actively support terrorists, including offering safe haven to the man that mixed the chemicals for the 1st WTC bombings, and al qaeda linked extermists interested in killing the Kurds. Not coincidentally those extremists are now Al Qaeda's arm in Iraq.

Skepticism is a virtue, to me. Ignorance is not.

Things are bad with the corporations quickly taking over in our society. At some point in our lives most of us will work for a large corporation as there will be very few small businesses left. And these corporations use the apparatus of government to create legislation and regulations that help them grow, increase profits, but most importantly they use it to stifle competition. And a lot of these corporations are profiting from the war, particularly the oil companies. Gas prices just rose here in LA to over $4 a gallon. And what gets me is how surprised people act when they see the new price hikes. I can't wait to see how they'll react when it goes over $5/gallon.

And we all think voting once every two or four years will fix all the ills of society and somehow magically contain the corporations and spendthrift politicians and bureaucrats. It's a bit of a joke when you think about how powerless we really are. But, before things turn for the bleak, I can say I believe what Joseph Campbell once said (and I paraphrase) that the world is as good today as its ever been and as bad as its ever been. In other words, it will always be getting worse and better, and we each participate in it.

So, yes, we should question everything the government does, and if we don't give in to cynicism we should participate in changing it as well.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Typical dumb fuck truther comment right there. You know, it's easy to belittle those on the fringe. Always has been. When the majority believes in something, how dare the minority challenge it or have an opposing viewpoint?

Someone once told me that history was written by the winners. He was referring to those who win the major battles in history writing it so the "facts" are favorable to them. Somehow I feel like that probably happened a lot over the course of human events, and not just after conquest and war. I cannot help but wonder what in my school history books was true and what was fabrication.

Unlike science, history cannot be tested and proven. It just exists as an unchallenged retrospective.

What I find funny about anyone who challenges the "official story" of 9/11, is how many people come out of the woodwork on here to scoff them. And they all somehow allude to themselves as being scientists or people with scientific knowledge of events surrounding that day. I don't know, it just seems so damn fishy, doesn't it?

And the ferver in which they attack those who disagree is astonishing. I don't buy the official story as the gospel, but that doesn't mean I think the corporate media added fake CGI planes to the footage of 9/11. Or that Bush masterminded the events. I simply don't know what happened. And that doesn't make me a wing-nut or a dumb fuck. And you either.

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
What cracks me up is simply because we don't believe the "official story" we are labeled a "dumb fuck truther".

You know, I have been thinking about what you said, and not only is it not being a dumb fuck, or a nut job to question. Isn't It our duty as American Citizens to question things our Government tells us that don't make sense? I mean, the whole GasLand thing going on. And Inside Job. This shit is getting out of control. They are getting away with anything they want and are not being held accountable for any of it...

As @VoodooV put it:
"To me it's a moot point. Even if it was proven that it was a conspiracy. America simply doesn't show any willingness to prosecute anyone anymore. No one was prosecuted for the lies that led us to the Iraq war, no one is prosecuted for Wall Street destroying the economy. America simply doesn't care about justice anymore. Justice is inconvenient.

Of course, one could imply that because of America's inability get much done these days, that it's a strong argument for it not being a conspiracy. It actually takes competence to pull off a conspiracy of that magnitude. We're too busy fighting with each other."

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building 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."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.
But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?
You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.
Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.


Why would he go on record stating one thing then suddenly change his mind years later? Why state tests were done considering a full fuel load, then all of a sudden he says "...then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered."

And why would you say they only tested at landing speeds (180MPH) when the quote I posted clearly states 600MPH. Which is it? Was it landing speed 180MPH, or what he said years earlier 600MPH? It certainly can't be both. Why would he also state the the difference between 12,000 gallons of gas and 12,980 gallons of gas enormous? That's far from enormous.

You are right. Now everything he has said is suspect and not to be believed. Disregard every post I have posted with his quotes in them now. And I'll do the same with yours. Thanks.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building 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."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.


He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.

But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?

You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.

Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building 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."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.


And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm... Also how did Demartini say ANYTHING after the attacks He's DEAD! He DIED in 9/11!!

As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building 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."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.


Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.