Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing

[-Cp]

The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers[1] were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[3]

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”[4]

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6]

Read the rest:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/200...designers.html

[Kathianne]

Not so strongly. It's been addressed again and again:

http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...ws_towers.html

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

I'm not going any further. Jim addressed long and successfully in debate section. With that, moving this to Conspiracy Forum.

[-Cp]

If find it odd how so many Americans only want to believe their own version of the truth..... and refuse to look at other evidence...

[Gaffer]

If find it odd how so many Americans only want to believe their own version of the truth..... and refuse to look at other evidence...

There is no "other evidence". The truthers live in an irrational hollywood inspired world. Mission Impossible stuff. Maybe even some scifi. It was all produced to degrade Bush and give the commies (dems) ammo to use against him. Purely for political purposes. And you bought into it.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. This is laughable.
2. Muslims did this, the twin towers falling shook all the foundations within 2000 feet of its footprint.
3. Its a wonder anything was standing that stood near to them.
4. I am sure this whole area was sunk down from the impact of the twin towers falling.
5. I'dd guess three inches at least.
6. This will do strange things to other structures near by, everytime.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[SassyLady]

If find it odd how so many Americans only want to believe their own version of the truth..... and refuse to look at other evidence...

Why are you asking us to believe your version? If you don't want to be "odd" then you should follow your own advice - look at other evidence.

I would say that we have "looked at other evidence" as it has been presented and found it to be sorely lacking in credibility.

[MtnBiker]

There is no "other evidence". The truthers live in an irrational hollywood inspired world. Mission Impossible stuff. Maybe even some scifi. It was all produced to degrade Bush and give the commies (dems) ammo to use against him. Purely for political purposes. And you bought into it.

Well, that's not exactly true. I read a story once, but have lost the link, that the collapse was a result of tremdous pressure placed on the buildings while a herd of bigfoot were on the roof of the towers celibrating their capture of the Loch Ness moster. It was a very compelling argument with video evidence, sorry I have misplaced the link, but do keep your mind open and accept an alternative truth.

[n0spam4me]

Just 'nuther bit of logic.

Modern Aircraft are designed to NOT explode on impact,
(look it up!) Given that on 9/11/2001 THREE aircraft crashed and exploded on impact, how do you explain that?

Also have you seen the pictures of the second plane to hit the WTC?
This is not only inconsistent with what is alleged to have happened in the case of the PENTAGON crash but is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

There are a LOT of things that have a VERY LOW probability of happening in the way that they happened and to stack up all of the improbabilities, the odds against anything of the sort happening are enormous!

I have an idea for a challenge, if some brilliant student of structural engineering wants to take it on, ... Build a structure such that given random damage and fires will "collapse" straight down as did the towers.

What?

[Gaffer]

Just 'nuther bit of logic.

Modern Aircraft are designed to NOT explode on impact,
(look it up!) Given that on 9/11/2001 THREE aircraft crashed and exploded on impact, how do you explain that?

Also have you seen the pictures of the second plane to hit the WTC?
This is not only inconsistent with what is alleged to have happened in the case of the PENTAGON crash but is inconsistent with the laws of physics.

There are a LOT of things that have a VERY LOW probability of happening in the way that they happened and to stack up all of the improbabilities, the odds against anything of the sort happening are enormous!

I have an idea for a challenge, if some brilliant student of structural engineering wants to take it on, ... Build a structure such that given random damage and fires will "collapse" straight down as did the towers.

What?

Makes no difference how something is designed. If filled with fuel and flown at 300 mph into a building it will explode. It will disintegrate and the fuel is what explodes.

As for odds and improbabilities: "Even God couldn't sink the Titanic".

[-Cp]

Makes no difference how something is designed. If filled with fuel and flown at 300 mph into a building it will explode. It will disintegrate and the fuel is what explodes.

As for odds and improbabilities: "Even God couldn't sink the Titanic".

Can you name any other Airplane crash that has disintegrated? They ALWAYS find large pieces of the plane....

[Gaffer]

Can you name any other Airplane crash that has disintegrated? They ALWAYS find large pieces of the plane....

Most crashes occur while landing or taking off. They are not at full speed going straight into an object or ground. When they do there is very little left of the plane. And as I said. Planes don't explode. The fuel does. Jet fuel burns extremely hot.

Ever watch a race car hit something and disintegrate. Aircraft are the same on a larger scale.

[-Cp]

Most crashes occur while landing or taking off. They are not at full speed going straight into an object or ground. When they do there is very little left of the plane. And as I said. Planes don't explode. The fuel does. Jet fuel burns extremely hot.

Ever watch a race car hit something and disintegrate. Aircraft are the same on a larger scale.

I'm talking about crashes that happen during mid-flight etc...

[Mr. P]

Can you name any other Airplane crash that has disintegrated? They ALWAYS find large pieces of the plane....

No, they don't always find large pieces.

MINA, S.D., Oct. 25—A Learjet carrying professional golfer Payne Stewart.

http://www.piratenews.org/payne-stew...ash-debris.jpg

[Gaffer]

I'm talking about crashes that happen during mid-flight etc...

Your grasping for straws here CP.

Do you actually believe our commie run government wouldn't be all over this like flies on shit if there was anything to it? Do you believe they would continue the cover up when it could make Bush and all repubs look bad?

[n0spam4me]

Really now, don't you realize that Obama works for the same GREED INC. masters as Bush and indeed many other "presidents" ....



Enjoy....