re: 9/11 Was A Conspiracy!

quote:

---

And that doesn't even account for the structural damage due to planes flying into the building.

---

The Towers were designed to withstand multiple hits by jetliners with more power than the ones that crashed into them on 911. That's from the mouth of the guys who built it, so structural damage having any effect on a collapse is a non point.

You shared a chart, that's cool, but the information you supplied doesn't take into account the design of the towers. Do you have any knowledge of the way the towers were built?

From the lead structural engineer. For what it's worth.

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… 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. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

From the lead construction manager.

“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.”

quote:

---

Sleeping Tiger

---

As you can see

And with the Titanic.

Many engineers have built structures that they thought would withstand or could withstand anything not realizing they had inherent design flaws. The science has been put in front of you and all you can link are some quotes about how they thought they had a building that could sustain jet impact.

“Until the moment she actually sinks, the Titanic is unsinkable.”

Just dwell on that for a moment.

quote:

---

Many engineers have built structures that they thought would withstand or could withstand anything not realizing they had inherent design flaws.

---

I find it strange that they could even factor in a plane striking the building. I'm not saying physics are unpredictable, but that's a very strange assertion and is there any actual way to test models? I say no.

quote:

---

Debunked.

---

I'm not thoroughly looking through an Alex Jones site, none of the images are even visible, the site looks broken and from what I'm seeing I'm not detecting much debunking.

And anyway, if Ross wants to get scientific he needs to apply his science to the design of the towers.

quote:

---

You masturbate to infowars.com.

---

Only in your dreams, the wet ones.

I've been pretty candid and consistent about my dislike for that kind of stuff and Alex Jones in particular.

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][76]

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[80]

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[84] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][85] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][49][84][85][86][87] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[88]

Leave it up to Sleeping Tiger to say that science is on the other side of this fence.

Get out of here with your "MIT Material Sciences and Engineering Professors".

quote:

---

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[84] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][85] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][49][84][85][86][87] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?

---

So it didn't happen because it would have been difficult to plant the explosives? I mean really, and you bolded that?

For one there is an incredible amount of evidence that supports the notion that shady things were going on at the WTC site leading up to the event.

Two, that is not in any way a legitimate rebuttal to any of this.. 'it would have been too hard to plant explosives', okay.. I mean is that supposed to carry any weight?

B25 Mitchell -- note the parity in size with a Boeing 767.



This isn't exactly apples with apples, son.