The building's architect said so long ago. I'll go find it and reference it for you though so you can beat it down or otherwise simply dismiss it.
We know that it only took one for the claim that currently exists though (that it went *poof* inside of about an hour, TWICE), and that we're not supposed to question it and simply place our trust in those that tell us what it is that we saw. Six or seven? That would probably take too long though and allow for much too much speculation to occur, and result in far too many questions requiring logical answers so then, there's just the one per building (except for that other pesky building that also collapsed all by itself that no plane hit).
Really? The building's architect? You mean the on-site construction manager who says in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE that "he believes" they could have? Just another example of the garbage evidence you people use to try and make your claims believable. BTW, how does the above quote, coming from someone who you think knows what he is talking about, translate into the fact that you truthers think the plane should NOT have penetrated the perimeter column. He says the planes would have PUNCTURED the perimeter columns.
More ridicule, I see. At any rate, more per the structural engineers (plural) conclusions here: http://www.ae911truth.org/news-sect...d-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html The point being that those buildings were indeed designed to withstand multiple impacts of large commercial jets. From the link: “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… 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. [But] the building structure would still be there.” In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling, claimed that the Twin Towers were only able to withstand the impact of jet airplanes going no faster than 180 mph. However, not only are these statements contradicted by the design test results, they also contradict statements made by Robertson in 1984/1985, when he said that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”
I KNOW what the building's architect said,He designed them to withstand ONE 707hitting them,and said they PROBABLYcould take multiple strikes,but that was all speculation,wasn't it?
another thing that is damn fishy about this whole scene, the fact that two airliners allegedly made direct hits on the towers resulting in the "aircraft" disappearing inside the building total nose to tail penetration, and then the wreckage stopping inside the building without blowing out the opposite side. Considering the fact that there was a difference in the point where the hit was to have happened, and the steel would have been thicker lower down the tower, in addition the approach angle for "FLT11" and "FLT175" were considerably different. Why the same result, that is a cut-out including cuts for the wings where it is alleged that the aircraft wing cut a gash in the side of the building. whats up with that?
Think about this if you will, the scenario is dependent on the wings staying attached to the body of the aircraft because if the wing had become separated, it would have ONLY the KE that was representative of the mass & velocity of the wing ONLY. no help from the rest of the mass of the alleged aircraft. so for 2 crash events both wings stay with the aircraft while penetrating a wall, That is a total of 4 wings for this stunt to be as explained by the official story. damn good trick don't you think?
How do you figure that? In the case of a bit of hay penetrating anything all that needs to happen is the bit of hay be aligned straight on to the target, it's a rather different matter to have appendages to the main body of the object. It also is a fact that the "aircraft" didn't penetrate completely perpendicular to the face of the tower(s) and the port side wing of "FLT175" contacted the wall significantly before the starboard side wing, this would impose stress upon the whole aircraft. It is very common to see in other examples of aircraft crashes, broken off wings, why would the wings have stayed with the body of the aircraft in this instance?
an error made by news people looking to get the quick scoop, they misinterpreted a statement made by NBC that "wtc 7 was about to collapse or had collapsed". hmmm...guess you missed the elevator shaft that goes from the top to the bottom of the whole building, on the left. how do you know its iron and not steel or aluminum? how do you know its not steel, or aluminum?
Would be interesting to see more detailed drawings of the towers so I could see where the express elevator to the top actually terminates. It would be one thing if this express elevator opened up into the lobby and quite another if it was a freight elevator for use by Technical Services, and was away from the lobby. anybody have a pointer to any more detailed information?
Too specific for an error... They were talking about the cause of the 'collapse' before it happened. How can you know the cause of something that didn't happen yet? I'm sure the remaining fuel was intelligent enough so that it carefully looked around, crawled across the wrecked floors and walls like in Final Destination, among all the pieces and carefully selected that shaft, seeking innocent, unsuspecting victims, then set itself on a journey downwards, patiently and consciously avoiding ignition until the 1st floor and to the basement and only when it reached the lobby door it said to itself: ''Now it's time to explode''. Then knock-knock, the elevator doors on the lobby opened and boom. Because it explodes against the facade. There is no reason for liquid metals to behave like that unless they are mixed with something else. Same as above.
Something that would be fascinating to find, if only for my curiosity, would be any snap-shots that were done inside the towers, given the years that these buildings were in operation, somebody must have the casual pix the random office snap-shots of the interior spaces, anybody know of any collection of snap-shots? or is that to off-the-wall?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html For starters, on the drawing labeled SubLevel1CorePlan, locate the elevator pit for FE #50. Then on the drawing labeled FreightElevator48_49_50_ElevatorSecondary_MachineRoomPlans, look for Section 19-19. This shows the entire section of the elevator shaft including the elevator motor located on the finished floor elevation of 1660'-0".
