Do we agree the towers were designed to withstand jetliner crash?

cjnewson88 said:
Where's the debate? The towers survived the impacts of both aircraft, stood for up to an hour (even more in the case of the North Tower) and allowed thousands of people to escape. They did their job, they withstood an airliner impact and allowed many of the occupants to get out before the fires did their job and gravity did the rest.
Click to expand...

Indeed...funny enough I didn't notice the OP date. I was going to ask "Who left open the portal to 2006?", and sure enough "Non believer" is still living there.
 
Non Believer said:
I will respond only to answers to the questions I have asked
Click to expand...
I'm confused as to the point of the question.

There's no evidence pointing to the buildings being designed to withstand a plane crash (of any speed or size). The calculations were all made after the final design and no known modifications were made after the idea was studied.

To answer (again as many have done) the OP. No, the building was not designed to withstand a plane crash. It was found that the design however could indeed withstand a plane crash (speed and size not withstanding) and it did.

So, what's your point. Are you claiming if it was designed for this it couldn't have failed? That would be like saying nothing could ever fail if it was designed not to, I don't live in that perfect world.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I'm confused as to the point of the question.

There's no evidence pointing to the buildings being designed to withstand a plane crash (of any speed or size). The calculations were all made after the final design and no known modifications were made after the idea was studied.

To answer (again as many have done) the OP. No, the building was not designed to withstand a plane crash. It was found that the design however could indeed withstand a plane crash (speed and size to withstanding) and it did.

So, what's your point. Are you claiming if it was designed for this it couldn't have failed? That would be like saying nothing could ever fail if it was designed not to, I don't live in that perfect world.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Non Believer said:
I will respond only to answers to the questions I have asked
Click to expand...

In the intervening 6 years since the start of this thread, have you taken any classes in engineering? Let us know once you have, since that will make the numerous answers you have already received make a lot of sense.
 
Non Believer said:
Yes you sucked me back into the waste of my time which is to talk with the shallow eggshell pretense of intelligence surrounding those at this forum. I assume you are now up to speed that Skilling did claim that he calculated for a fully loaded 707 traveling at 600 MPH, or are you still claculating for the little Cessna or whatever which hit the empire state building? Have you ever been able to admitt that Robertson's post 9/11 statements were in contradiction to his earlier statements? Any thoughts on why there were no stdies, or at least those known to the public, after the 93 bombing? Would it not make sense to have some information on how resistant the WTC was to bombs and fire? Maybe just answer the questions before your little intellectual scurrying leads you to all your famous diversionary tactics
Click to expand...

Based no the fact you are gullible, as seen before...
Don't forget to mention that many of the new procedures were put in only monts before 9-11 at Rumsfields request
Click to expand...
Have you figured out this stupid stuff yet? What are you talking about? Robertson never changed anything.

Robertson designed the WTC to resist an impact at 180 mph. End of story. In addition, it has been shown a 600 mph impact would not push over the WTC towers, simple physics.

How resistive is your house to bombs? The problem with bombs, is people can't take the BOOM, our brains turn to mush.

Robertson's statements have never changed what he said earlier. Steel is not resistive to fire, end of story, never will be.

What is your point? Got a CT to go with this nonsense?
 
Last edited:
I am just wondering if you can actually acknowledge who Skilling was and the statements that he made? Yes or No?
 
Because if one side of an argument refuses to acknowledge seemingly given facts it is most likely either an indicator of the degree of their pathological bias, or a polemic strategy. If such standards are accepted then both sides just refuse to acknowledge any truths at all, and simply constantly point to some other point which they 'believe' supersedes the relevance of the given fact
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
How do you get De Martini's statements as saying the planes would bounce off the building? I mean you guys have wierder theories than the most outlandish conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

For impacts as slow as 200 mph, this is correct, almost like the plane would bounce off; it is called physics.

Skilling never said he designed for an aircraft impact at 600 mph? Do you have the quote?

Robertson design was to resist impact; any impacts over 200 mph would not be resisted. On 911 the impacts broke the fire protection, steel failed. What Robertson expected, he designed the structure.
 
Last edited:
Non Believer said:
Because if one side of an argument refuses to acknowledge seemingly given facts it is most likely either an indicator of the degree of their pathological bias, or a polemic strategy. If such standards are accepted then both sides just refuse to acknowledge any truths at all, and simply constantly point to some other point which they 'believe' supersedes the relevance of the given fact
Click to expand...
What's the point of your argument? You don't seem to have one other than trying to get people to agree you've made some sort of point. What again is this point? :confused:

I suspect you don't even know.
 
Non Believer said:
I think the evidence is clear that the majority of the engineers of the towers have gone on the record that the towers were designed to withstand crashes of fully fueled jetliners. Leslie Robertson's famous quote that the coincidence theorists point to says that he was not aware of any calculations that were done on the resultant fires from a crash. He does not say that he knew there were no such calculations. The late John Skilling is clearly on the record that the towers were built to withstand such an event, as is the late Frank Demartini who died in the towers on Sept 11. De Martini can be seen on video claiming that the towers could withstand multiple jetliners. For those of you not aware of the history. The empire state building was struck by a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog in 1945. Because of this event the designers of the towers intentionally designed the towers to withstand such an impact.
Click to expand...

Design was for 180 mph, low on fuel.

The most likely accident (ACCIDENT) for an aircraft impact from a large airliner would be... lost in the fog, low on fuel. Low on fuel, does that ring a bell?

The design of the WTC would resist an impact below 200 mph. Most of the plane would fall outside the WTC, no major fire in the core, no damage to the core.

On 911, impact energy 7 and 11 times greater than the impact design. This why 6 and 10 core columns were destroyed. This is why fire systems were destroyed. This is why the insulation fell off. This is why steel was subjected to fire. If they aircraft hit at 200 mph, no core damage, no major loss of insulation, no stairwells destroyed, no major interior fires, no fire systems destroyed, etc.

On 911, the two jets delivered 10,000 gallons of jet fuel to the core of the WTC; This is not low on fuel. Not low on fuel.

Design parameters, less than 200 mph (180 mph), low on fuel, aircraft lost in the fog. 911, no fog, no low fuel, no 200 mph.

Makes quibbling about what was said a big failure. oops, i failed
 
beachnut you are quoting Robertson and not Skilling or are you incapable of telling the difference?
 
Non Believer said:
beachnut you are quoting Robertson and not Skilling or are you incapable of telling the difference?
Click to expand...
Skilling said the fire would be bad. He also discounts terrorist attacks.

Skilling never said 600 mph.
Skilling never said the towers would survive an impact 7 and 11 times greater than the design done by Robertson.

You are quote-mining and not using comprehension to form a rational conclusion. You prefer the inside job nonsense.

"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," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
Click to expand...
Oops, terrorist attacks are a different story.
 
Last edited:
I assume you mean he did not consider who would be piloting the plane going 600 MPH. Please explain the relevance to that in terms of his study?
 
DGM said:
Did I mention the Titanic was said to be un-sinkable?
Click to expand...


Obviously that means They™ flew a missile disguised as an iceberg into the ship and then blew the ship up with thermite, causing it to sink at faster than free fall speeds.
 
Non Believer said:
I assume you mean he did not consider who would be piloting the plane going 600 MPH. Please explain the relevance to that in terms of his study?
Click to expand...
Can you explain how the study actually has any bearing on the fact the buildings fell?

After all these years, whats this line of reasoning got you. Let me guess, someone to talk to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom