>> ^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. Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Wow a few months before. Yup that discredits his entire statement. I better disregard it entirely. And perhaps since he's dead it would be kind of hard to make any further statements on the subject.

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.

>> ^bcglorf:

Nope! no-one addressed his first question at all.
Provide a single answer for why the planes where needed if the explosives were already planted. NOBODY gave a motive for that, none of your links gives a motive for it either.
we've already determined that whatever evidence you guys provide is 100% truth and accurate and any links provided to the contrary are false and unbelievable.
No, we've explained WHY our sources were more reliable. You and previously swapped scientific journal analysis of WTC dust. I said mine was better because the scientists in mine collected their own samples, directly and analyzed them immediately. Meanwhile yours collected their dust be making a public request years after my report was already published, and then just took the word of the individuals that the dust was authenticate. They then further, arbitrarily, chose to only analyze the privately submitted samples that had strange looking red chips in them.
So yes, I consider the paper I cited much more reliable than yours. The difference is I've explained specifically why, meanwhile you seem to have no interest in figuring out why the two reports contradict one another.


We aren't discussing dust in this conversation... Nor am I discussing whether the WTC 1&2 buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition. 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. He's saying they were wrong, or their testing was inaccurate, or they are only referring to the actual collisions and not the fires that ensued after the collision, which is incorrect. They most certainly do address that issue. Meaning I don't buy the whole "jet fuel caused the collapse" Theory 100%.

You never answered my question: Which actual facts are you referring to? The ones that are incorrect about the size, speed, and fuel capacity of the jets of that time for instance? Those actual facts?

I didn't take the time to continue reading after that since that wasn't actual facts or truthful. I'm sure there's more items on his site based on "actual facts" http://www.debunking911.com/ that are incorrect as well as they cite no references to their "debunking" information at all. At least the site I provide gives references to where they get their information.

I also think you are reading more into his first question than there is. He asked what was to gain from this. He did not specify what was to gain from smashing jets into the building and rigging it with explosives. You are putting words into his mouth.

1)Money. Lots and lots of money. See Iraq/Afghanistan. War is a racket.
2)If you look closely at the first shot in this particular video you can clearly see them. Pause the video at 0.17
3)You might want to look into who the residents of WT7 were. That's a very easy question to answer.
4)Small amounts of collateral damage are enough to wake the sleeping giant. Plus the trade centre building had just been re-insured.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I want the dumb-fuck truthers to answer a couple of "simple" questions for me, or to STFU:
1)What is there to gain from it?
2)Where are the signature multi-level explosions used to fell a building?
3)How the fuck do you sneak all the explosives in with no one noticing?
4)Why would they bother making them fall straight down? Wouldn't sideways be better if you're going to kill a bunch of people?

>> ^bcglorf:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Drachen_Jager" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">Drachen_Jager I can post just as many links to, and quotes from pages supporting questioning the official story of 9/11 as you can debunking them. Whoopty doo.
Yeah Drachen_jager was being unfair by referring to actual facts. Everyone knows you can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true...
It doesn't appear that anybody has even tried to answer MarineGunrock's first question either:
1)What is there to gain from it?
Not from the attacks, but from rigging all 3 towers for controlled demolition, and then crashing planes into just two of them instead?
Every single motive from any truther I've ever heard would be much BETTER accomplished with just one or the other. If you've already rigged the buildings for demolition, just go ahead and trigger them and blame the terrorists. It's not even the first time terrorists tried to take out the buildings. Arranging to hijack the planes only brings more mouths into the conspiracy and more room for things to go wrong or for people to talk.


Nope! no-one addressed his first question at all. And we've already determined that whatever evidence you guys provide is 100% truth and accurate and any links provided to the contrary are false and unbelievable. You guys are right 100% of the time.

What was to gain from this?

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/trillions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/transactions.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

[Edit] Which actual facts are you referring to? The ones that are incorrect about the size, speed, and fuel capacity of the jets of that time for instance?

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@Duckman33
Are you serious? That quote says the building would withstand the collision. The buildings did withstand the collisions. How is that supporting your argument? You can't just throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks, pick a cogent argument or there's no point in even trying to debate.


"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."

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

Yup. that's exactly what it says.... No mention of jet fuel or the fires from it whatsoever. Again, you're right and they are wrong

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html


I don't see how Occam's Razor applies any differently to WTC 7. It received serious blast damage from the collapse of WTC 1. It was on fire on at least 10 floors. Emergency crews had been ordered clear of the building fearing the it might collapse. When it collapses what is the simplest explanation?

1.The visible blast damage and fires caused the collapse.
2.Explosives planted before the blast and fires were triggered causing the collapse.
3.Miniature welding robots planted around the steel columns caused the collapse.
4.An inter-dimensional rift briefly opened within the buildings support columns, severing them and causing the collapse.

>> ^bcglorf:

I also see people mentioning Occam's razor, which would be the "simplest, most probable" explanation. I'm sorry but if you are outside and see a steel building collapse at free fall speed, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint are you really going to think,
"Hmm, looks like some burning office furniture must have annihilated that entire building"
or are you going to think,
"Hey look, a controlled demolition"
Well if the building looked perfectly fine, you'd think controlled demolition. If it'd been on fire for half the day and had several floors demolished you'd think it was the fire and physical damage. Is that so hard to grasp?


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^MaxWilder:
1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.also when the constructions of WTC started in 1960's, the largest plane was something like 727, if not even smaller, and that's what the designed were accounting for. A logical situation for a plane hitting such tall buildings would a plane lost in the fog coming down for landing..
757 is a much larger plane, fueled for cross-continent flight, and smashed into WTC going much faster than it would normally fly at such height.


As I posted above and you seemed to ignore. This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

And:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@duckman
If you cannot see the problems there I don't hold a lot of hope for you.
In essence, all you're saying is the engineers who built it thought it probably could withstand the impact, and maybe the fire.
Well the engineers who built the Tacoma narrows bridge assumed it would not fall down on it's own. When it did collapse it was the first time a bridge had collapsed due to harmonics and wind shear. I guess it was a government conspiracy because the engineers hadn't planned for it to fall down that way?
Are you trying to say it was the first time engineers have been wrong?


Yes, that it. The facts are wrong, so are the Engineers that designed the towers, and you are right. End of story. ROTFL. By the way I'm not saying anything, the text I posted speaks for itself. The text says nothing about maybes. They tested for these scenarios. Quit making things up, like the site you referred me to, it sounds desperate. The link you provided me outright lies about the jet's size, speed, and fuel capacity and you have the balls to refute the statements on the site I provide with no proof to back up your claims? LOL That's rich. So you're going to actually sit there and say they are wrong? I didn't know you were an expert in building skyscrapers. Oh that's right. this is the internet. We can claim to have any degrees and knowledge we want here...

Additionally, comparing a bridge that was built in 1940 to skyscraper built in the 70's is a joke. Try harder.

Once again you are under the assumption I give a rat's ass about your opinion of me. I say again I don't. So please stop making such statements.

Your video, FOIA Lawsuits Cause Release of New WTC7 Collapse Video, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Would it not be logical for the engineers and planners to account for evolution of design and make the building able to withstand something bigger/heavier ? as if they thought " well, guess our planes are not going to get any bigger, might as well settle "
I am not following this thread, just seen what you wrote and dont believe that.
just my two bits.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/mxxcon" title="member since April 27th, 2009" class="profilelink">mxxcon


this is based on what i saw during interviews with the original designers and architects. the only previous accounts of a plane hitting a building was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash so they based their designs on situations like that

>> ^MaxWilder:

1. The towers were designed to withstand impacts by jet planes and to withstand fires. But they didn't account for the fact that a jet impact would strip much of the insulation on the steel girders. So the impact plus the prolonged fire was what did them in.also when the constructions of WTC started in 1960's, the largest plane was something like 727, if not even smaller, and that's what the designed were accounting for. A logical situation for a plane hitting such tall buildings would a plane lost in the fog coming down for landing..
757 is a much larger plane, fueled for cross-continent flight, and smashed into WTC going much faster than it would normally fly at such height.

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."

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

"There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse."
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm
>> ^Duckman33:
I see the third steel structure building ever in history to collapse from a fire. 3 buildings in one day, but has never happened before in history. Wonder what the odds of that happening are?



From your link "Debunking 9/11":

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time."

This is actually not entirely true at all. According to this site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Not only the is size of a Boeing 707 only slightly smaller than a Boeing 767, but it holds only a mere 980 gallons less fuel, and is faster than a 767 by 77MPh.

Also:
"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."

And:
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

See also: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/index.html

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^pho3n1x:
>> ^bcglorf:
How about this approach for the truther crowd. Anyone convinced that jet fuel can't melt steel needs to go and tell that to these guys. They base their entire business on selling oil fueled furnaces for melting steel. If jet fuel can't burn hot enough all they're devices they've sold will be duds. Actually, it looks like that's the bigger conspiracy. Hundreds of different companies are selling all manner of steel melting furnaces that run on oil. If the truth gets out that their furnaces are impossible to operate, they'll go broke.

Yeah.

so... you're saying that the WTC towers were furnaces in disguise? I didn't realize they built those towers packed with alumina bricks and backing insulation with which to direct potential fuel into radiant energy.
I can make a device to boil water at room temperature or below, but that doesn't mean that I've debunked modern science's assertion that water boils at ~100C.
--
I haven't made a concrete decision one way or another, but IMO the 'official' story is not the truth. The 'proposed truth' is made even more suspect due to the immediate and secretive clean-up efforts, and the only scientific presentation being made by a government entity.

Yes, they were good enough to be furnaces. Even a standard home is good enough to count as a furnace and can readily exceed temperatures of 1000C when set on fire, without benefit of jet fuel. Here's an article describing testing a fire simulation. They simulate burning a wooden crib inside a room. They run a parallel actual experimental burn of a real crib and measure peak temperatures of 1134 C. It is noteworthy the experimenters don't even bat an eye at that as being unusually high, because they know that it isn't.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there"

Oh, and FYI, I'm still not taking a stance.