Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
you fucking morons. NO ONE has ever said the towers were built to "withstand" a direct impact from a jetliner. not the original architects.. no one. It was always a consideration that it could happen... but no one ever said "hey man... this building is jet proof" which is exactly what you are saying.
|
you fucking morons. ? lol That's wishful thinking but that's beside the point... Did you watch the video I posted? Heard what the construction manager said? Are you that much in denial?
Here's a BBC article you might want to read before talking like you are some sort of authority on the subject..
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
Let me repeat, the impact of the plane DIDNT bring the building down, so what the fuck are you arguing again?
Quote:
CNN interview with the architects....
----------
AARON SWIRSKY, ARCHITECT: I was working with Minoru Yamasaki, who is the architect of the building. But I was one of the workers with him. We were a team of 14 architects, and I was one of the members of the team.
HARRIS: As a member of the team, and having such insight to how this building was constructed, could you believe that a plane could bring these buildings down?
SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday's incident).
|
Thats all you got? lol.. Yeah , that's definitive! Very detailed, not vague at all... Dismiss all the links I posted above...
Quote:
|
Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today.
|
You talk out of your ass yet again... . 767 and 707 is nearly identical... Actually, the 767 is more fuel efficient...
http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/8687.php