• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

47 vertical support columns in core of each Twin Tower from bedrock to top floor

Here is some information on the Twin Towers actually being designed to withstand a possible plane impact during foggy conditions....

9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated

aircraftcomparison.gif


The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.


property Boeing 707-320.............Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons..........23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs.....395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs............179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft.....................156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^.....................2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft.........................159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph..................530 mph


Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS. "

" BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT."

" THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE."

At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these perimeter columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
Your right about the WTC taking the impact that would be obvious. The building was design so it could take a aircraft impact but, I believe that was in regards to immediately collapsing. What is not discussed is the ensuing damaged done and the length of time for the WTC to collapse. Also no one has considered the logistics, cover up, the amount of people required to pull this so called conspiracy off...it would be massive to say the least. This isn't a simple three man operation.
 
Typical, Ya give good solid information, and the rubuttle is, "no way they could figure out how to cover it up". Well obviously, the facts prove they could. ---- some people just have their minds made up, and no amount of evidence will change their way of thinking. We can't all be open minded, and looking for the truth.
 
Typical, Ya give good solid information, and the rubuttle is, "no way they could figure out how to cover it up". Well obviously, the facts prove they could. ---- some people just have their minds made up, and no amount of evidence will change their way of thinking. We can't all be open minded, and looking for the truth.

Pot meet kettle
 
When they were being built computer models predicted that the towers would be able to take a plane crash. However, as you can imagine, computers weren't very good back then. They weren't able to take the ensuing fire that would have resulted into account.
 
When they were being built computer models predicted that the towers would be able to take a plane crash. However, as you can imagine, computers weren't very good back then. They weren't able to take the ensuing fire that would have resulted into account.
Sorry my bad---messed up
 
Last edited:
When they were being built computer models predicted that the towers would be able to take a plane crash. However, as you can imagine, computers weren't very good back then. They weren't able to take the ensuing fire that would have resulted into account.
they were good enough to put a Man on the Moon, were they not. Or was that all slide rules, I forget. and that was in 69.
 
When they were being built computer models predicted that the towers would be able to take a plane crash. However, as you can imagine, computers weren't very good back then. They weren't able to take the ensuing fire that would have resulted into account.

Reading this....all I can do is shake my head.

It is clear you will not let facts get in the way of what you "WANT" to believe...
 
i've always found it rather simple why they fail.

the part of the buildings below the hits could not support the entire load of the buliding because everything above the hit no longer had stuctural support due to the damage by the hits.

mtm1963
 
**** In an earlier entry on this thread Skateguy stated that "they could cover it up" - this from someone who has claimed here that he's just looking for facts:shock:

**** As far as 1960's projections go - True the 767 & 757 are not much more than a 707 - BUT when the Towers were designed Nobody thought of an airliner being delibretly driven into them at throttled up speed even. They clearly were focusing on a mistake - an absolute worst case scenario. This is the point the Truthers will not address because it brings in human nature & fallacy and all their BS has to be one huge flawless long thought out conspiracy involving a lot of evil determined players who are so resolute as to not only be able to predict and coordinate the actions of dozens of others but to remain silent as individuals - FOR YEARS:shock:

***** The Towers were NOT wired in advance for destruction by anyone and if some prominent person wants to state such - give him the floor. ****heads like Michael Moore can show their crap to some Hollywood Wine & Cheese types ad nauseum but it won't change anything.
 
It seems obvious the 1960's analysis during the design phase of the WTC about it surviving a 707 type aircraft hitting it were wrong. Although I believe those figures were assuming it was a 707 lost in the fog flying at a slower speed (since it was assumed it would be an accident). The speed makes a huge difference. Also the intense fire weakening the metal structures were not figured in or they were wrong there too.
 
It seems obvious the 1960's analysis during the design phase of the WTC about it surviving a 707 type aircraft hitting it were wrong. Although I believe those figures were assuming it was a 707 lost in the fog flying at a slower speed (since it was assumed it would be an accident). The speed makes a huge difference. Also the intense fire weakening the metal structures were not figured in or they were wrong there too.

Why do you guys intentionally try and manipulate and twist things?...

Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he designed it for a Boeing 707 to hit it. Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires....

but also of ensuing fires,
 
Last edited:
Why do you guys intentionally try and manipulate and twist things?...

Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he designed it for a Boeing 707 to hit it. Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires....

but also of ensuing fires,

Again, they were obviously wrong.
 
You can cling to your OPINION all you like......MANY prominent people throughout the world see it differently than you...

same goes for you!! ;)

and many see it the same.

mtm1963
 
Last edited:
same goes for you!! ;)

mtm1963

I just posted facts and you guys deny it with no research or supporting facts for your opinions......

The word Denial sounds dumb to say but when posting indisputable facts I come across many forms of it......
 
I just posted facts and you guys deny it with no research or supporting facts for your opinions......

The word Denial sounds dumb to say but when posting indisputable facts I come across many forms of it......

you claim "indisputable facts", but the fact is, the claim you have presented doesn't hold water because if it did something would have been done about it.

keep on spectulating!! :)

mtm1963
 
Last edited:
I just posted facts and you guys deny it with no research or supporting facts for your opinions......

......

You discount all facts and research that doesn't support the twisted and sick view that 9-11-2001 was all set up by the government. Plenty of facts and eye witnesses support that a group of people (a.k.a. terrorists) figured out a way to kill a bunch of innocent Americans and hurt our economy.

The buildings collapsed because very heavy objects full of fuel hit them at a very high speed. The fires weakened non-traditional designed building's metal structures and they fell down.
 
You discount all facts and research that doesn't support the twisted and sick view that 9-11-2001 was all set up by the government. Plenty of facts and eye witnesses support that a group of people (a.k.a. terrorists) figured out a way to kill a bunch of innocent Americans and hurt our economy.

The buildings collapsed because very heavy objects full of fuel hit them at a very high speed. The fires weakened non-traditional designed building's metal structures and they fell down.

Those planes also hit the building 'off-center' (as can be viewed by the floorplan of damaged columns... so, the removed fire retardant could ONLY have accounted for less then half of the insulation being removed on any one floor.. so, the flames would have only been able to heat that section of the buildings steel. Then, only a portion of the metal would have been hot enough to sag and fail...

So, untill someone can explain how that assymetrical damage led to a symmetrical collapse with virtually no resistance, amouns to a little less then a half-arsed explanation.
 
i've always found it rather simple why they fail.

the part of the buildings below the hits could not support the entire load of the buliding because everything above the hit no longer had stuctural support due to the damage by the hits.

mtm1963
Wow that explains it. and all this time, I just thought the Sky hooks broke. Learn something everyday.---Just like when you top out a tree, the base always falls, due to it no longer being supported by the top. Yep--sounds about right.
 
Last edited:
Wow that explains it. and all this time, I just thought the Sky hooks broke. Learn something everyday.---Just like when you top out a tree, the base always falls, due to it no longer being supported by the top. Yep--sounds about right.

when you and the others have actual evidence that's provable in a court of law, your argument will continue to fall on deaf ears as it has from the beginning.

good luck. :)

mtm1963
 
Those planes also hit the building 'off-center' (as can be viewed by the floorplan of damaged columns... so, the removed fire retardant could ONLY have accounted for less then half of the insulation being removed on any one floor.. so, the flames would have only been able to heat that section of the buildings steel. Then, only a portion of the metal would have been hot enough to sag and fail...

So, untill someone can explain how that assymetrical damage led to a symmetrical collapse with virtually no resistance, amouns to a little less then a half-arsed explanation.



**** YOU will NEVER be satisfied with any explanation short of a genuine conspiracy showing absolute Evil culpability by the US Government and dark Corporate forces. Now kindly provide the name of one really well known individual (known before 9/11/01) who believes in any of your assorted crap.
 
Talking around the 47 Columns, and to keep focusing on the floors, will answer nothing. Do people really feel the floors some how hold up the buildings? Because they don't. The floors are simply attached to the support columns, by beams and fasteners.Those or what gave way, allowing the floors to fall. But nothing melted those central support columns.--- The frame work of the buildings hold up the floors, not the other way around. Change the way you are looking at this, and you'll have to admit this is correct. Every single floor could be removed, and the central core columns, and the outer support walls, would still be standing there. Vertical beams are added to the support columns, to hold up the floors. ---Man this just seems so obvious, and I'm not even all that smart.
 
Wow that explains it. and all this time, I just thought the Sky hooks broke. Learn something everyday.---Just like when you top out a tree, the base always falls, due to it no longer being supported by the top. Yep--sounds about right.

LOL....hilarious!:lol:

Some people are just too low on the intelligence curve to comprehened technical evidence.

Don't those guys have an O.J. Simpson trial somewhere to be a juror at?
 
LOL....hilarious!:lol:

Some people are just too low on the intelligence curve to comprehened technical evidence.

Don't those guys have an O.J. Simpson trial somewhere to be a juror at?

can you guys prove your case in a court of law? :)

mtm1963
 
can you guys prove your case in a court of law? :)

mtm1963

Is the government able to prove IT's case, say against bin laden, in a court of law???

The answer to that is NO. Or else, you could go to the FBI most wanted list and see 9-11 as a charge against him.
 
Back
Top Bottom