Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxdesign-net
"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 |
so all the idiots that believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy makes the claim that the fire isn't hot enough to melt the steel.... and you're making the opposite argument?
Quote:
|
Let me repeat, the impact of the plane DIDNT bring the building down, so what the fuck are you arguing again?
|
you're right. the buildings suffered significant damage from the planes... then the fire sealed the deal ensuring that final structural failure. thanks for agreeing with the 9/11 Commission, NIST and FEMA reports.
Quote:
|
You talk out of your ass yet again... . 767 and 707 is nearly identical... Actually, the 767 is more fuel efficient..
|
i was simply quoting one of the architects who was saying (as you so well ignored) that the buildings were not built to withstand the impact of a commercial jet. there are countless interviews with these guys and this question always comes up and its always answered. you are confusing some sort of made up idea with fact. what they might have hypothesized the building could have survived and saying 'we built it specifically to withstand XYZ' are not the same thing.
its like saying "the Titanic is unsinkable" when that was never a claim of the builders... it was a claim of the media.