9/11 was a conspiracy not a conspiracy theory

[Yakuzaice]

sethnintendo said:

Yakuzaice said:

sethnintendo said:

I'm sticking with the engineers of the WTC.  They designed it to withstand an airline hit anywhere.  The way that it was built allowed it to take a blow and still be structurally safe.  There is no way both buildings that were designed to take a hit falling so quickly.  There are reports (from the firefighters that were on the floors where it was hit)  that the fire wasn't even that bad and was about to be contained when all of a sudden the tower went down.   Would you agree that most of the jet fuel burnt up outside the towers?  It looks obvious to me that most the fuel was burnt up outside the buildings. 

I'd like to see design documents showing it was meant to withstand a 767 loaded with fuel going at a high rate of speed hitting the building in any location.  They designed for situations like the ESB and 40 Wall St. building crashes.  In other words, a plane that was attempting to land at a nearby airport, but got lost for whatever reason.  That means it would be traveling at a slow speed with a small amount of fuel left.  Also an office building is loaded with things which aren't jet fuel that can burn.

It's kind of hard to take any structural engineering claims from you seriously when you didn't even understand why the South tower fell quicker.

I didn't make the claims.  I linked earlier in the thread a video where the Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management was stating that it could withstand a fully loaded 707 crash into it and stating he believed it could withstand multiple impacts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78

DeMartini was not involved in the design of the World Trade Center.  I don't see how he can be called an 'engineer of the world trade center'.  He was an architect who worked for the company that was hired to help with repairing the WTC after the 1993 bombing. 

Like I said, I would like to see solid design specifications, not a flippant remark made on camera.  'Fully loaded', what does that entail?  A plane loaded with fuel going 1000 km/h or just a plane that is full of cargo?  'Multiple impacts' how many is multiple?  Two?  Five?  Twenty?  'Screen door'?  This analogy is just bad.  A screen door is held up by the door frame, not the screen itself.  It would be more comparable to knocking the windows out of the building.  'Sustain multiple impacts'.  Once again, what does sustain mean exactly?  The buildings did 'sustain' the impacts of the airplanes, but it was the sum of multiple factors that brought the buildings down.

Here is a quote from Leslie E. Robertson, an actual lead structural engineer on the World Trade Center.

" The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/EngineeringandHomelandSecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx