Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-12-2009, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
88,588 posts, read 84,818,250 times
Reputation: 115120

Advertisements

The towers were built to withstand multiple air strikes.

Who the heck told you THAT? Calculations were performed for a "what-if" scenario back in the Sixties during the design phase to determine what might happen if a commercial jet hit the towers. The assumption was that it would be a plane having technical and/or visual difficulties in taking off or landing, since the three major NY airports are within ten miles of the WTC. The only reason we know that is that a few old engineers still live from the time of the original construction, but there is no document existing with such calculations.

In the 1960's, there's no reason anyone would have anticipated a direct hit with a fully-fueled jet headon at 500 miles per hour. C'mon now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2009, 10:02 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
The towers were built to withstand multiple air strikes.

Who the heck told you THAT? Calculations were performed for a "what-if" scenario back in the Sixties during the design phase to determine what might happen if a commercial jet hit the towers. The assumption was that it would be a plane having technical and/or visual difficulties in taking off or landing, since the three major NY airports are within ten miles of the WTC. The only reason we know that is that a few old engineers still live from the time of the original construction, but there is no document existing with such calculations.

In the 1960's, there's no reason anyone would have anticipated a direct hit with a fully-fueled jet headon at 500 miles per hour. C'mon now.
That anticipation existed after a plane flew into the Empire State Building many years before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 12:21 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,488,320 times
Reputation: 9618
they were DESIGNED, to withstand a hit by a 707 with NO FUEL and LOW SPEED

and they DID THEIR JOB, the building stood for time enough for many people to get out

they were not designed or build to take a HIGH SPEED, FULL FUEL 767 hit taking out 6-12 STORIES in the hits

not to mention the damage by the 1975 FIRE, the 1993 attack,(which did MASSIVE damage to the substructure)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,488,320 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by njguy View Post
Thermite Identified As Culprit Of WTC Collapse

Look at the photo that has the fireman standing and you'll see a beam sliced sideways which is prime evidence of thermite explosive used.

Also there was molten iron found weeks after 9/11/01 is another piece of evidence of thermite being the culprit.

thermite AKA white phosferous aka willie pete was NOT found...steven jones's claim of RESIDUE of thermite turned out to be the chemical make up of GYPSUM and concrete along with the sulfur dioxide (acid rain)


and as far as the 45' angle cut...wrong again

that was part of the clean up....I was one of the many construction workers that made those cuts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 04:26 AM
 
Location: Saturn
1,519 posts, read 1,632,796 times
Reputation: 246
I think the 9/11 Commission report is about as valid as the Warren Commission report.


It would not surprise me if the govt are deliberately covering up certain facts regarding that day.
Govt's have a tendency to be economical with the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 10:06 AM
 
4,538 posts, read 4,812,567 times
Reputation: 1549
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
they were DESIGNED, to withstand a hit by a 707 with NO FUEL and LOW SPEED

and they DID THEIR JOB, the building stood for time enough for many people to get out

they were not designed or build to take a HIGH SPEED, FULL FUEL 767 hit taking out 6-12 STORIES in the hits

not to mention the damage by the 1975 FIRE, the 1993 attack,(which did MASSIVE damage to the substructure)
HAHAHA. They did not plan for jet fuel? Are you really that stupid? The buildings were built to withstand MULTIPLE 707 hits. It's easy enough to prove real-time on a physical model, not faked computerized models. Just take a steel framed structure structure slated for demolition, put flammables in it, and ram a remote controlled plane into it with twice as much jet fuel. and let it burn all day... it will gradually burn out, and the basic steel structure will remain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 10:20 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indurain View Post
I think the 9/11 Commission report is about as valid as the Warren Commission report.


It would not surprise me if the govt are deliberately covering up certain facts regarding that day.
Govt's have a tendency to be economical with the truth.
Yes, Government tends to be very Conservative in that regard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,950,814 times
Reputation: 7118
Quote:
That anticipation existed after a plane flew into the Empire State Building many years before.
Was that a DC10 fully loaded with fuel?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 10:26 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Was that a DC10 fully loaded with fuel?
Can't remember exactly, but I think it was a WWII bomber.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2009, 10:30 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,324,078 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by onedaynh View Post
this thread is full of nuts. you truthers are probably the ones bashing the birthers in other threads. unreal. you guys should get tested for mental disease.
Could be that some are the Anti-Birthers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:23 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top