Continued
I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t.
You said "People thought at the time that it was unsinkable. Just like how you apparently feel that the Twin Towers were built so perfectly that two commercial airliners couldn't destroy them."
and I said "As I have said, a couple of times now, but you insist on repeating yourself, so I have to put you right, I have never said that I believe the Twin Towers to be built perfectly just built to withstand a strike by multiple airplane."
To which you said "I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t."
Where is the connection between these three posts and this
"I was pointing out to you how the analogy actually works because you claimed that it doesn’t." What did I claim that it does't do?
So what if it was built for that purpose? It doesn’t guarantee that it will withstand a strike by multiple airliners. That’s the point.
Well, there claim that is does was taken seriously by the insurance company and those who rented space in the Twin Towers, it is just you who have not taken it seriously and have said, Oh well, people make mistakes, it was only 3000 innocent people that died because of someones exaggeration. By the very method of the construction made it impossible for just one airplane to cause a collapse. It would be like sticking a pencil through a mosquito net. It would make a who but the overall strength of the net would not be compromised. It is the engineering and design that enables him to say that several holes in the net would not cause it to fall not his opinion but a scientific fact.
We’ve had over a hundred years to scrutinize what happened to the Titanic so now we know, in hindsight what was wrong with it and what went wrong with it. The people who built it in 1912 could have (and probably did) make the very same argument you’re making here, and they would have been right, at the time. They were indeed more technologically advanced than most everyone who had come before then. Probably 100 years from now we’ll know a lot more details about what happened to the buildings on 9/11.
Those who built the Titanic new that the bulkheads did not go up far enough so as to allow for more first class cabins. They knew the risk they were taking. Poor quality material is always a risk to use, whether in 1912 or today. As for 911, we don't have to wait a 100 years to find out what happened, we already know. It is the silence of the Government and people who are unqualified debunkers who are preventing the truth from coming out. They are hindering the passage of the truth.
The major design flaw in the building of the Titanic was that the bulkheads didn’t reach the ceiling. Some of the known design flaws in the WTC was their lack of sufficient fireproofing and fire-suppression systems. I’m sure we’ll know even more in the future.
The temperature of the fires were insufficient to cause the trusses to weaken. The temperature was only around 250 to 500 degrees. For a weakening effect to take place would require a sustained temperature of 800 degrees and a lot longer exposure than 85 and 56 minutes. It would take far longer for the metal to absorb sufficient heat to become malleable.
You assumed I was going to insult you.
I assumed it because it is a frequent event..
What happened in on the 9th of November in 2001?
OK, you got me. I made a mistake with the date. Damn, what a clutz I am. In the uk it would be 11/9. The 11th September but the USA say September 11th - 9/11
Oh, have you talked to them recently?
No, but there are videos and photos of them on the internet.
The planes that hit the WTC were 767s.
And your point is?
Designing something in a certain way doesn’t guarantee that thing will behave in the exact way it was intended to.
If you are scientifically competent it does. That is why the scientific method requires repeatability. Have you heard of an "error factor" that is used in almost everything that is made. One airplane would not exceed any error factor on the design of the mess like cage that encompassed the twin towers.
We know this happened … how?
Ok, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. I do not know for instance if Atta was killed in Germany or in America. But the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11 as there can be hardly any doubt about who was behind 9/11 if one rejects the official story. Some elements remain vague, like what happened exactly to WTC7, flight77, flight93 or Mohamed Atta. But these questions are of academic interest only. It's clear who was behind 9/11 and what happened in detail with WTC-1/2 and the planes. That is enough. Here's where most people got killed. The rest of the plot can be uncovered by a tribunal.
More of This can be Found Here
There seem to be a lot of people involved in this conspiracy theory. Not one single person has blabbed about it to anyone? Not one single person ever saw a single suspicious thing?
T
his interview of Alex Jones with Andreas von Bulow, the former German Defense Minister said that 9/11 had to be carried out by a very small group of people. Alex asked him 100? 40? He said less than that.
let's start counting:
Read the Rest of this Report Here
In the days after 9/11, numerous pilots and aviation experts commented on the elaborate maneuvers performed by the aircraft in the terrorist attacks, and the advanced skills that would have been necessary to navigate those aircraft into their targets. The men flying the planes must have been "highly skilled pilots" and "extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators," who were "probably military trained," these experts said.
And yet the four alleged hijackers who were supposedly flying the aircraft were amateur pilots, who had learned to fly in small propeller planes, and were described by their instructors as having had only "average" or even "very poor" piloting skills. But on their first attempt at flying jet aircraft, on September 11, 2001, these men were supposedly able to fly Boeing 757s and 767s at altitudes of tens of thousands of feet, without any assistance from air traffic control. Three of them were apparently able to successfully navigate their planes all the way to the intended targets, which they hit with pinpoint accuracy.
For such poor pilots to carry out such skilled flying would surely have been extremely unlikely, perhaps impossible. And yet this is what is claimed in the official account of 9/11.
http://shoestring911.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/911-hijackers-amateur-aviators-who.html
I’m not sure what kind of pinpoint accuracy it takes to hit a really tall building with a giant plane. Or to just “graze” one of the buildings, as stated in the link you provided.
Neither am I, so I listen to those pilots who do.
The FBI in the US had been investigating the potential use of planes by terrorists for at least 10 years before the attacks on 9/11 but it didn’t occur to them that terrorists would hijack planes to carry out suicide missions. Sounds like another one of those human flaws where we fail to see every little thing that could possibly ever happen, though it seems obvious now.
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).
Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.
Read the Rest of this Report Here
Brigham Young University Professor of Physics Steven Jones has suggested that thermite, or some other powerful, high temperature, high explosive capable of slicing the powerful steel columns that comprised the WTC towers central core, provided the energy missing in the official account.
In a September 1, 2006, New York Times article, "U.S. moves to debunk ‘alternative theories’ on Sept. 11 attacks", Jim Dwyer reports that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, disputes Professor Jones’ suggestion. NIST believes that such "enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them" that engineered demolition is not feasible.
Gentle reader, note what NIST is saying. If no reasonable quantity of the explosive thermite, which is used for engineered demolition, could damage the powerful buildings, the measly energy from an airliner, a bit of jet fuel, and gravity could not have collapsed the buildings. Can you see how incompetent these people are. How could you trust in their accuracy.
The Final Bit of this Article
