9/11 10 years ago
- Thread starter compboyo
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 5,280
- Location
- Midlands, UK
Conspiracy theory or not, how the hell could they test or even calculate that a building could withstand such an attack by such a plane at such a speed and at such an altitude?
No way could they do that.
No way could they do that.
Id come home from Working offshore a few days before and decided to visit a mate, we were just Watching TV and they were discussing the first hit, Went down the pub for lunch and sat there pretty stunned as the 2nd one hit live on camera.
the steelwork WAS sprayed with the asbestos replacement as far as i'm aware. it's just that almost nothing on earth is as good as asbestos for insulating things and retarding fire.
Just got back from shopping, put the radio on and Chris Moyles was just telling people to put the news on and that it wouldn't be fitting to have his usual banter on the show.
I was a new dad at the time and the images made quite an impact on me.
I was a new dad at the time and the images made quite an impact on me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,111
i remember watching it live on the TV, seems like yesterday
I gave up caring and decided to leave it to pseudo-scientists on internet forums to draw the conclusions instead.
And that's for conspiracy theories in general. When someone offers me a theory I either mock it or mentally catalogue it for future trolling purposes. I don't care if lizard men do want to control the world. Because in 30 or 40 years, touch wood, I'll be to dead to care. "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE WORLD OF YOUR CHILDREN!" **** it. Because someone is always going to be trying to anyway.
That's not a conspiracy theory, just facts about the buildings construction, in fact it actually de-bunks a few conspiracy theories (like why a tower designed to survive a commercial airliner hit was toppled by a commercial airliner hit).
They did calculate it, albeit using 707's (an older design of commercial airliner than the ones that hit it), the buildings structure was designed to absorb such an impact kinda like a fly flying into fly paper, the idea was the would be large damage but the tower would be fine, kinda like a Jenga stack with a block out the side, but they calculated the biggest risk would be from the aircraft's fuel (that's where the fire proofing that never happened was supposed to come in).
this is 2011, we still do not have an asbestos replacement that is as good all round as asbestos, imagine what they would have used 40 years ago to replace it (bearing in mind it was the replacement for the asbestos O-ring that brought about the destruction of a space shuttle...)
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 2,446
- Location
- Colchester
I was in year 10 of school then but i bunked off school that day to go round my mates house to play games on his ps2 and pc..
It's not fact at all, you will not find even one calculation or references to it in the design phase.
The only reference is in the initial outline, where possible safety concerns were outlined, for a plane in fog doing landing approach speeds hitting it. This was never taken any further. The WTC as such were never designed or built with this in mind. You need to check your facts, as they are plain lies and you won't find any evidence to back up your claims.
Last edited:
Except that they did a fire test on an abandoned hotel in the UK that used the same steel construction as the towers
And they discovered that in their tests the towers should not have fallen even without fireproofing on the steel work.
it was internal structural damage caused by the impact of the planes coupled with fire damage to concrete supports (concrete explodes when too hot) that caused the towers to fail.
Even if they had full asbestos fire protection on the steel work the buildings would have still come down they simply were no designed to take that much damage from planes of that size and survive.
But hell think what you like it makes no difference why the towers fell it is still a tragedy that cannot be diminished by arguments of shoddy work or what if's
And they discovered that in their tests the towers should not have fallen even without fireproofing on the steel work.
it was internal structural damage caused by the impact of the planes coupled with fire damage to concrete supports (concrete explodes when too hot) that caused the towers to fail.
Even if they had full asbestos fire protection on the steel work the buildings would have still come down they simply were no designed to take that much damage from planes of that size and survive.
But hell think what you like it makes no difference why the towers fell it is still a tragedy that cannot be diminished by arguments of shoddy work or what if's
Again not true.
All you need to do is look at the Madrid tower fire.
The Windsor tower in madrid was designed in two halfs. Concrete reinforced steel for the first half and a steel structure very similar to WTC for the second half. Guess what happened to the top half of the tower and that was with no structural damage.
Last edited:
Found some:
Were really derailing this so I going to stop, but ill leave one point, Google "B-25 bomber", that's the type of plane that got lost in fog and flew into the Empire state building in 1945 killing 14 people. And you reckon aircraft were not a concern for the WTC design in the 60's?
You can dispute the facts I listed if you like I don't mind but please don't call them lies because you don't agree with them, they are accepted truths, hell you get taught about it on asbestos courses lol.
That's not evidence.
Go and find some in the tower(pun intended) of blue prints, diagrams and paper work of the construction. There is no truth to it, they are lies. Go do some more research, they certainly are not accepted.
It was never in there and never designed for an impact. There is a lot of FUD around, and a lot of agencies and people saying this and that. The only important fact is what is included in the plans and it isn't. There is also no evidence of fire from a plane strike ever being considered, not even in the initial phases.
As I said it was a concern it was in the initial outline, it was never taken any further.
Also a plane in fog is not doing 500+mph.
Go and find some in the tower(pun intended) of blue prints, diagrams and paper work of the construction. There is no truth to it, they are lies. Go do some more research, they certainly are not accepted.
It was never in there and never designed for an impact. There is a lot of FUD around, and a lot of agencies and people saying this and that. The only important fact is what is included in the plans and it isn't. There is also no evidence of fire from a plane strike ever being considered, not even in the initial phases.
As I said it was a concern it was in the initial outline, it was never taken any further.
Also a plane in fog is not doing 500+mph.
Last edited:
I was on the internet chatting to a Yank mate who was working just a couple of blocks down from the WTC. Between the BBC news site and my mate's commentary, I received pretty good coverage of the event! I recall that the Beeb's site crashed from all the extra traffic, but they had it back up within 10 minutes or so.
Next evening I was at work and nobody could talk about anything else. During our lunch break we all sat silently in the canteen and watched as the world's media gorged itself on endless video loops of crash footage from every possible direction.
Felt very strange. I remember telling myself that I was witnessing history being made.
Next evening I was at work and nobody could talk about anything else. During our lunch break we all sat silently in the canteen and watched as the world's media gorged itself on endless video loops of crash footage from every possible direction.
Felt very strange. I remember telling myself that I was witnessing history being made.
FFS show some respect, almost three thousand people lost their lives in the event
No **** sherlock, what are you my dad?
I do show respect but I do it in my own way, Flowers... Church service.. 2mins silence but NOT a forum closure.
You mean plane-proof???
Apparently the WTC towers were already built with plane crashes in mind, but I think it was more to do with light aircraft and the like.
I think it was one of those things where it was all but inconceivable that someone would fly a passenger jet into the buildings.
I'm not sure you could even figure a reasonable way to build a skyscraper to withstand a plane flying into it.