I can only go by what the engineer who designed the twin towers said " it was built to withstand multiple impacts" Ok if that was how it was built and it failed dont you think that an engineering failure of that magnitude would at least be investigated in a seriouse way.

madisonman...

If you won't read the information I have provided to you and instead insist to continue your rant in ignorance then no one can help you and you will never be satisfied with what they have to say. It is futile. I am done with you sir. A rational conversation with you is not possible.

It was investigated, the 9/11 commision and all physics and demolition experts I've talked too confirm the official story as plausable. Where did you get that quote? I seem to remember a show on discovery claiming noone thought about such a thing when the towers were built, they were made to try & withstand a bomb attack, but the physics involved with a bomb attack require a completly differant equation;^]

too funny how about a rational answer, and yes i did read your information and I have not seen the report that indicates a design flaw on the twin towers that indicats why buildings built to withstand multiple impacts fell like a house of card with just one, these are the facts sir and not any raveings. If my facts are incorrect prove it and I will be happy to be corrected.

Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.


The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

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

I just heard that myself and am getting ready to investigate for myself! I am not surprised that our goverment is involved! very scarry when you think about it, who eltes has to die for someone eltes cuase!

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.

John Skilling
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 McDonald 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. 3

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have wit

Can you find me the qoute that's not from a site dedicated to the "conspiracy" or from an alarmist site? Careful if your only getting your info from these websites, just because they say it doesn't make it true;^]

I have considerd the sources they can be verrified, I dont think the corperate media and the vested interests will allow a seriouse discussion anyhow. who owns the media is another topic. you cans start googling the names of the enigineers who made these statements and find other sources qouting them. I realy dont think anyone has anything to gain by promoteing these Ideas and in fact most have alot to loose. there is an engineering professor at MIt who blew me away with his statements on the events that took the towers down thats when I started getting into it. I would realy like to think it was an engineering failure as it is much more comforting to me to think that, however one would think if that were the case there would be some radicle new designs for buildings if these plans were well disasterous

You are right. I apologize for coming in here and making such a spectacle of myself.

As it turns out.. upon further investigation, I found some irrefutable evidence of a conspiracy! I feel like such a heel now.

This photo was taken the day before the attack, as the two suspects were leaving the building.

http://www.yesalbum.com/v005/jistme/tt.jpg

I suppose then you will just leave the topic then and let it be discussed in a reasonable manner

Dam, that's my grandad on the left

I'm thinkin maybe you are missing my point.. There is no reason! But you are right.. Why should I stand in the way of delusion?

Thats laughable you havent answerd anything in a reasonable way and when your backed into a corner with a fact or logical conclusion you insult or post something moronic. I am realy enjoying this thank you, you are ehlping to validate some thoughts I have being that you have no facts to contradict anything I have said.

But you realy dont get it that i would rather believe a you that its so diabolical as to be insane to contemplate but when you lay out all the things that had to go wrong and all the people responsible for it well it seems obviouse, I realy dont understand why President Bush would not speak under oath to the 911 commision, that gave him a liscence to lie and why would he need **** Cheneye to be at his side under the same (NO OATH) clause to tesitify, this being after he wouldnt speak to them in th first place and didnt even wish to have it investigated. all these things seem to add up to well I hate to use the word but conspriacy does come to mind

I think jistme's point was quite clear and accurate.

Madisonman, Popular Mechanics has totally debunked the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory.

Read their totally debunking of the conspiracy right here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

The whole incident was researched by the company, mechanics that work for them and so on. It takes every theory and breaks it down, and inputs reality.

He won't read it. He just wants to keep his thread alive.

But, you don't even need to read the truth, because it may be too long for too many people who can't read, would rather watch a sensationalist propaganda film.

You leftwingers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists will gladly call Bush the dumbest President ever and so on, but yet you think he carried out the most elaborate inside job ever? Seriously?

And then, you have to pass the fact that this Presidential Administration has been one of the most leaky EVER, and yet no one leaked that 9/11 was an inside job, something that would get them big fame and fortune as well as would be very patriotic? Come on, ridiculous.