4500 hundred planes were in the air that day, and that’s 4500 blips, because the hijackers turned off the radar transponders.
The failure was not preparing in advance, years ago, to work out some communication system with civilian air traffic control (ATC) centers. People at ATC just started dialing trying to reach someone.
Still, it is not easy to find a plane, or even catch it in time.
The Empire State Building survived a crash with a WWII-era bomber. It was structurally intact. Granted, a wide-body airliner is bigger and (more importantly) carries a shit-load more fuel. Nonetheless, it would appear that the towers were significantly less strong than conventional skyscrapers. Of course, as noted above, I speak from near-perfect ignorance of the subject.
(Just to be absolutely clear: I am NOT in any way questioning that the WTC towers fell due to terrorists flying big-ass airplanes into them.)
They are designed to survive airplane strikes. 100% wide-body airliner crash proof? Doubt it.
This is why no one wants to give the truther morons the time of day. They all have the same playbook and it gets old debunking the same points over and over and over and over again.
Posted by me, in The Pit, a few days ago…
When the World Trade Center was designed it was designed to withstand an impact from a Boeing 727. It probably would have. But it got hit by a far larger plane that had not been even proposed at the time the design was contracted.
Of course, Boeing could have been in on it.
Tris
Here’s an interesting statement about the structural integrity of the buildings from a highly qualified expert from this site: http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
Make of it what you will.
David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988).
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.
So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.
When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.
Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.
What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.
But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation." http://www.ae911truth.org
That is my theory. Boeing did it as part of a marketing plan just to show how powerful their big planes are. It doesn’t sound like it makes sense by demonstrating how their planes can crash in a spectacular fashion but someone in their marketing department read an old article that included the phrase “There is no such thing as bad publicity” and just ran with the concept. They also got rid of some dead weight employees in the process both figuratively and literally which their HR department called a “win-win” strategy.
There’s also minority opinions of how global warming is a farce and how creationism is better than evolution.
The Pentagon is south of the Potomac River - it’s outside Washington, DC, although its address is Washington, DC.
There’s no place a DC tourist would be that would just naturally have the Pentagon in their camera’s view. The Pentagon is a lot shorter than the WTC was, and not visible from anyplace on the mall. It’s barely visible from Memorial Bridge.
He’s not a structural engineer. He’s not qualified to comment.
Now that I agree with.
But seriously, to accuse bald facts of being impossible and then point to an organization that has been caught in more lies than Old Scratch himself as a paragon of truth and integrity is just the height of absurdity.
Thanks, Uncertain, for those websites way back up there. When I go through Cecil’s mail, there’s about one question a week (usually from someone who doesn’t believe the conspiracy theory but who thinks that there’s unanswered questions), so it will be nice to have websites to send them to.
As an aside, my bottom line: If it had been a govt conspiracy, they would have seen to it that George W Bush came across like a hero. He would have had a dynamic and crowd-stirring speech, he would have taken a leadership role and been man of the hour. Instead, he and Cheney went scurrying like frightened rabbits. So, the whole conspiracy thing just doesn’t make any sense.
Worked pretty good didn’t it.
What safety factor did they calculate? Any engineer will overbuild to escape failures. You don’t do a close call. I saw an interview with the architect and he thought it would be able to withstand it. He was shocked.
They never conceived that a jumbo jet full of fuel would hit it dead-on at full speed. They thought perhaps a smaller airplane, less fuel, glancing blow, lower speed, etc. Any one of these factors would’ve been drastically mitigating. It is also my understanding that if the fire suppressant systems weren’t severed on impact, the buildings probably would’ve survived. It was basically a perfect storm.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html
It was a 707, not a 727. It’s not clear if things were planned on a lost plane without much fuel flying slow and looking for the airport in the fog or traveling at full speed. Either way, the towers did survive the impact, but no real analysis was done on the resulting fire. But Leslie Robertson, the lead structural designer of the WTC, thought the towers did very well. I don’t see any quotes that support the assertion that he was shocked about how the towers withstood the attack.
I don’t see anything here that says he is any kind of engineer even the kind that drive a train. So basically this entire paragraph is an appeal to authority. Obviously if this guy is as smart as he is in urban planning, then he must know about building collapse.
Yeah, right.
He is just a fucking moron who does not know his ass from 3rd base.
There was an excellent story on This American Life a couple of years ago. Terrorists blew up a bomb in an Underground train in London. One of the women who was on that train blogged about her experience. Conspiracy theorist started pointing out “inconsistencies in her story”. They were claiming she was obviously a government plant to cover up what really happened. No matter what she said, they wouldn’t believe her.
And, yet as part of their evidence against her, they claim she never wanted to “debate the facts with them”.
When you have so much invested in a conspiracy theory, you aren’t going to let some facts get in your way. If a fact doesn’t match what you are saying, you merely state that it is obviously false or that it was a plant.
One of the things you’ll notice in these conspiracy sites is that their own explanation is inconsistent. For example, the people who think the moon landings were faked point to the crosshairs that appear in many of the photographs. Sometimes, they appear missing. There are two theories: One is that they were laid down first, and the pictures pasted over them, or they were laid down last over the picture. The theory keeps changing in order to explain “inconsistencies”. The conspiracy theorists insist on perfection for your evidence, but don’t seemed too bothered by their own inconsistency.
That’s like saying because James Randi/Joe Nickell, etc., aren’t scientists, they are not qualified to debunk many of the things they do.
*http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 – More than 800 Architects and Engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports
June 17, 2009 PDF
*
It looks like PM lists five actual structural engineers and a smattering of Professors of Engineering. They also say, “PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories. The following were particularly helpful.” I’ve tried to dig up those ‘over 300’ and so far have had no luck. I even asked this site for help on that a couple of months ago, but no one provided any links that worked out.
And none of them agree with each other, either. You’d think if they were really on to something they’d have a unified theory by now. There’s nothing even remotely approaching that. For instance I never see any specific claims about who supposedly pulled off this “inside job”-- only vague references to “the US,” “the government,” “the NWO,” etc etc. Very rarely are Bush or Cheney even mentioned, and that’s usually by anonymous kids posting comments on Youtube videos and the like. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they know they’re lying and don’t want to expose themselves to libel and slander suits.