These two pictures, in particular, are solid evidence that fires burning for a long time on a full floor (and above) would have weakened the supports.
And my avatar is solid evidence that I swam the English Channel. Backwards. Twice. Think hard now. Fire, and heat, rises. Supports = beneath fire. I grew up in a fire hall, and half my family are/were firemen. They all say it's impossible, and they went to college to study the properties and characteristics of fire, structures, and everything that could possibly happen when the two mix. But thanks for playing.
The building design was marketed as having been tested to withstand a Boeing 707 strike. If the inevitable fire was left out of the test, the test was criminally negligent or fraudulent. Any company which located an office there based upon the misinformation would sue. The original designers are alive and have been interviewed post-9/11. Yet I don't see anyone suing them over the airplane claim. So I wonder whether your information is true. Conspiracy nuts are worse when they represent a political party, because their fundraising abilities are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The Republican Party sent out letters saying that the Democrats' health insurance plan would create death panels. Then their proto-Tea Bag heads flooded the nonsense into informational meetings set up by congressmen. Every day, conservative Glen Beck makes up a couple of new conspiracies on his show. How do you feel about such conservative conspiracy theorists? I won't even mention the WMDs that Saddam had according to the official Bush conspiracy theory.
707, controlled demolition, fires, conspiracy theories. I think most is of this are just giant smoke screens from really looking at what happened on and before 9/11. My problem on what with 9/11 is this. In talking with friends who are both professional and amateur pilots the actual impacts into the WTC and Pentagon is what is truly amazing. To be able to hit those targets on what is to be the terrorists first and only attempt with the level of training they received is.... well unbelievable. To receive only limited training in small planes and then be able to control, aim and crash a jetliner flying at max speed into a preselected target is a hell of an accomplishment. All I'm asking for is to take 100 random people and give them the same training that the 9/11 Commission says the hijackers received and then put them in a professional jet flight simulator and see if they can hit the WTC and Pentagon on their first try. If 80% can do it successfully then I believe the "official version". But if 50% or less can't do it and hit something else then I think we have a real problem. I have two friends who are commercial pilots, they both said that even if you could fly a Cessna perfectly and had read every manual and book on the workings of a cockpit in a commercial airliner there is no way that you can accomplish what the terrorists did. Sure, they guide a plane and hit a city. But to pick out specific buildings, even if they were some of the largest buildings the world is next to impossible. They believe that the pilots would had to have had training in commercial airliners. Except here's the problem, the hijackers didn't receive training in airliners in the USA, only small planes. I wonder if there was anywhere else they could have received training in flying commercial jet aircraft closer to their homes? Oops, the only commercial jet training program in the middle east happens to be in Saudi Arabia. Run by the Saudi air force. And, they won't disclose who has received training there. I'm not saying that the Saudi Arabian government was behind 9/11. They're not that dumb and don't have any real motive but considering that the hijackers where here under Saudi passports and their leader is a Saudi national if it had come to light that the hijackers received their training in Saudi Arabia I think the American public would have rather wanted to see us there vs Iraq no matter if the Saudi government was behind it or not. Like I said, it would be fascinating to see what the results would be if we reenacted that one part of 9/11.
It's really easy in a flight simulator to crash into specific buildings. It was clear that the hijackers were able to hit the upper floors of those two massive buildings.
And you think they were able to do this with the only training they received was the small plane training they had in the US? And Denny I'm not talking Microsoft's or Google's flight sim programs that you run on your computer. I'm talking about the flight sims that Boeing and the airlines use.
You may wonder all you wish. I'll just say I have a fair bit of experience and exposure with commercial leases and any tenant that sued on that basis would have that case thrown out of court. This incident was an act of madmen and not something that could have been predicted. The bottom line is that both buildings stood long enough to be evacuated. Non-sequitor alert.
Let's say I read the brochure of the WTC building. It brags that the building was designed to withstand a Boeing 707 hit. I rent there. I suffer damages on 9/11. Why can't I sue? Because the brochure doesn't stand up in court? Because the collision promise is in the brochure, but not in the lease contract? But that's a normal lease. This was an event that transcends lease theory. A court would not hold the lease contract to the normal rules. Even if you think it would, there's a chance it wouldn't, so at least one of the tenants would sue, just to find out. You say they would probably lose, but it's worth trying in order to be sure. So even if they will probably lose the lawsuit, why has no one sued over the airplane promise, if the testing did not include fire damage? Maybe because the testing included fire damage, so that's not the reason the building collapsed?
It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but it overlooks the fact that the hijackers apparently trained on airline sims here in the u-s-of-a. For example... barfo
^If I remember correctly, one of the main hijackers couldn't even fly a small aircraft. This guy right here.
Hey keep your facts out of my battle cry to invade Saudi Arabia. But as I watch the Olympic opening ceremonies I'm thinking we should invade Canada instead.
The picture of the guy I posted was "supposably" the pilot of AA77 that flew into the Pentagon. According to reports, he was unable to even fly a small aircraft as such: And yet he was able to fly a large aircraft inches off the ground into a building. Right.
Almost all pilots of the big airliners have 10-15 years of experience flying in the military. Flight simulators are just used to touch up the skills every now and then. It's rare (maybe unheard of?) for someone who flies a big commericial plane for a living, not to have learned his craft in the military. On 9/11 I told someone, "Good shooting!" I was impressed that the films showed the planes hitting the towers bullseye, right in the middle of the buildings, to cause maximum damage. Later, I heard that the pilots' entire experience was on simulators? No military flying experience before that? Hmm.
The building withstood a direct impact of an aircraft. It stood long enough to be evacuated. The lower floors were all evacuated. It was the upper floors where people died. As for any "brochure", I would be surprised if the impact resistance of the building would be advertised as a selling point. If I had to guess--and guessing is all any of us can do--anyone who may have wished to sue probably went and spoke with an attorney, who probably told them there wasn't a case. Again, the failure of the building was quite simple. The planes hit the buildings. The kenetic force blew off the fireproofing (a spray-on insulation over the steel beams). The materials in the building--paper, furniture, carpets, etc.--helped fuel the fire started by the impact and the exploding airplane fuel. The unprotected steel beams were heated to a point where they sagged, but didn't melt. That weakening of the steel beams eventually resulted in their failure which caused the buildings to "pancake" from the top down. To recap HS physics, Force = Mass * Acceleration. Increase the acceleration and you increase the force. When the force becomes strong enough, you have structural failure.
Well, there was plenty of fuel--paper, furniture, jet fuel, tires from the cars, etc. There was plenty of oxygen below ground from the PATH train and the interconnected tunnel/garage system. Put a pile on top of it to trap the heat, and not an airtight cap, and you have "hot spots".
Not according to the 911 commission report, which says he rented and flew small airplanes several times, and completed a training course on a 737 sim. I think you overestimate the level of pilot skill needed to crash an airplane into a very large building. barfo
It's not unheard of, and becoming more and more common. I know or have met at least 4 non-military major airline pilots. It's just more painful because you have to pay for your own training. barfo
