Former Reagan Treasury Secretary Questions Twin Towers Collapse

I talked with one of the designers of the Twin Towers on the day they were destroyed. He said they designed the towers to with-stand a 747 hit from every angle. He kept repeating that he did not understand why the towers fell

Well it seems that one of the men of President Ronald Reagan agrees

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/080206towerscollapse.htm

And this is my last article of the day.

This "article" is almost too inanane to debunk. I'll first note that the former treasury secretary is far from qualified to stateAside from the two sentences having no logical connection to each other, the first is patently false. Indeed, collapsing into its own footprint at free-fall speed is exactly what one should expect.

Buildings, especially ones as large as the WTC, are constructed with enough strength to support expected loads. Steel need not melt to become plastic, and slight deformation in a couple of struts under load will cause the remainder of the struts on that floor to reach their breaking point. Now with one floor collapsing, a mysterious force often called "gravity" comes into play. The floors above the one broken floor will come crashing down upon the one crashing floor with great mass and an acceleration of roughly 9.8m/s^2. Magically, the direction of the force points directly at the center of the earth or a place commonly referred to as "down". The stack of collapsing floors will cascade downward as each floor is hit with a force considerably higher than the floor above it.

Indeed, the fall of the WTC was indeed far messier than controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is carefully timed to cause the building to collapse inward, instead of straight down. This makes for a much smaller radius of debris than happened at the WTC.

I suggest you get your "news" from a more reliable source.

Ahhhh a De-bunker.... Welcome aboard.

My View is that there was something up on that day. We may never know what. But the benefits that have fallen on this Boy George Bush (Who should had been a one termer) are just too many to brush off. Plus the designer of the Building said they accounted for all that Its just enought evidence to convence me that the full story has not been told, and that the Boy George Bush administration (Non adminstration that is) is hiding a lot

Oh, I did love Boy George Bush;s lie about Los Angeles being a target of an attack. But then, its election year, what more can you expect from a three time looser like Boy George Bush???

Your view means as much as my cat's view. Unless you have facts, you're just projecting wishes as something slightly more tangible. Until you can actually muster together a plausible explanation of the physics involved - and "I talked to someone who said..." is not valid, whereas Introverts explanation actually is -, it's meaningless.

As for the rest... Just admit it, Magnum. You don't need evidence. If someone said "George bush slapped my baby and ate his eyeballs!" you would believe it sight unseen. Everything you hear is just "proof positive" of what you already "know". You've said as much before when other people questioned your sources, and your response as to why they were accurate was because they, I believe I quote, "revealed the crimes of the boy george bush".

I'm perfectly willing to debate the merits of our current president, and lord knows I'm not happy with everything he's done either, but blind, irrational hatred is a waste of my time. As long as you just are looking for excuses to justify an already-existing hatred, you come off as even more of a bulldog pundit than the left accuses Rush Limbaugh of being, and a good deal less entertaining at it, which is one thing even the left normally has to grudgingly give rush.

I'm very sorry to hear about your baby. The President must be held accountable!

I also do not understand why the towers fell, Magnum. If you're looking for causes, though, you might want to search a bit further back than Mad King George. American foreign policy and the Middle East's unrest have both been screwy for a long time.

Hmmm, seems to me, I remember seeing a program about 9/11 a few months after the attack, and the lead designer of the building said 707. That makes sense, as 707s were in wide use at that time, and I am not even sure that 747s were flying yet when the Trade Center was designed or when actual building commenced. I will look into that, and post what I find.

In case anyone was inclined to read politics into my analysis above, it was just plain physics. That said, if you wanna take jabs at the current administration, there are far more pertinent "grassy knolls" to use than the fall of the WTC. Also of note is that the buildings did accept the force of impact as the designer is said (above) to have claimed; it was the fire that nailed them and I don't know that one could have reasonably calculated that secondary effect at the time of deisgn.

Finally, in case anyone is inclined to read me as being remotely sympathetic to the current administration, you'd be mistaken.

If I recall correctly, the basic design for the WTC was done around 1966. The first 747 trial flights were around 1968-69.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the Bush Administration had a hand in the 9/11 attacks, but I am convinced that they saw an opportunity and shamelessly milked it for all it was worth.

It looks like the first 747 flight was February 9, 1969 and the WTC's Ground Breaking Ceremony was August 5, 1966.

World Trade Center - New York

Height: 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters)
Owners: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
Architect: Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting
Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson
Ground Breaking: August 5, 1966
Opened: 1970-73; April 4, 1973 ribbon cutting


Boeing 707

First flight: Dec. 20, 1957
Model number: 707-120
Classification: Commercial transport
Span: 130 feet 10 inches
Length: 144 feet 6 inches
Gross weight: 248,000 pounds
Cruising speed: 600 mph
Range: 3,000 miles
Ceiling: 41,000 feet
Power: Four 13,500-pound-thrust P&W JT3C-6 turbojet engines
Accommodation: Up to 181 passengers


Boeing 747

First flight: Feb. 9, 1969
Model number: 747-100/-200
Classification: Commercial transport
Span: 195 feet 8 inches
Length: 231 feet 4 inches
Gross weight: 735,000 pounds
Cruising speed 640 mph
Range: 6,000 miles
Ceiling: 45,000 feet
Power: Four 43,000-pound-thrust P&W JT9D-3 engines
Accommodation: 33 attendants, 374 to 490 passengers


Boeing 767

First flight: Sept. 26, 1981
Model number: 767-200
Classification: Commercial transport
Span: 156 feet 1 inches
Length: 159 feet 2 inches
Gross weight:300,000 pounds
Cruising speed: 550 mph
Range: 3,840 to 7,800 miles
Ceiling: 43,199 feet
Power: Two 48,000- or 50,000-pound-thrust P&W JT9D-R4D or 57,900-pound-thrust GE CF6-80A2 engines
Accommodation: 216 to 290 passengers


The second Boeing 767-200ER flying at about 590 miles per hour (950 kph), with a maximum of just under 24,000 gallons of fuel smacked Tower 2. A 707 could carry a max of just over 23,000 gallons, and the 747 can carry up to just under 60,000 gallons. BIG difference there, so even if the designers were aware of the 747 Jumbo Jet (perhaps Boeing had unveiled plans for the 747 already when the WTC designs were finalized - not sure), they went with a more standard aircraft of the era. Let's face it, a 747 is massive. They weigh over double the weight of a 767 and almost 3 times that of a 707, and carry over twice as much fuel - it's like sailing a battleship through the air LOL. I just don't think there's much that could withstand over 700,000 ponds of jet fuel soaked impact at 640 miles per hour or more. You'll notice the terrorists were exceeding cruising speed with the 767 that hit the second tower (WTC 2).

Which brings us to - the 767 is not that much heavier, carries a similar fuel load, and has a slower cruising speed than the old 707s. That is call for alarm, though I am not going to call conspiracy, I am going to call over-estimation of what the building could really handle by the designers - perhaps a little market speak interwoven there...

Also noteworthy - the structure itself did actually withstand the initial impact, the intense heat generated by the fire afterward supplied the coup de grace, as others have pointed out above.

Sources:

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

http://www.boeing.com/history/master_index.html

Nolan posts fast.

As I meander through daily life, I am amazed that the engineers are never wrong and everything is always accounted for. It's great how simulation always predicts reality to such precision that airline disasters never stray from the prediction model.

You know, my building was on fire last year and it went smoothly because everything was accounted for.....except for the massive wind, the sheer volume of paper kept in certain locations, the effect of massive amounts of water, etc etc

I'm sure Mayor Daley and G-Dub gained financially from the fire and it sickens me.

Agree fully.


Ditto me for that.

Yes rarely, but sometimes they do, as with that suspended walkway collapse at the Kansas City Hyatt in 1981.

Check the "Aftermath" part at the bottom of the page - seems like there was a bit of justice (for once).

The rest of what you said, especially about GWB, is how I feel too.

Yes, 747 were test flown in 1969 and were flying when the buildings were in the planning stages and were very popular in 1974 when the building was opened. The Engineer I talked to mentioned 747 and so it appears they went back and re-designed to account for that airplane.

I am thinking, Boy George Bush knew 2 months beforehand that terrorist (If that is what they were) were going to attack, and to save his sorry coup, he decided to do nothing at all.

I'm pretty sure we can work Havok 2, anti-Bush signs, and Suicide into this thread. I'm not sure about those Goreans, though.

wow, I'm glad I haven't missed any important discussions the last couple days..

I see the radicals are still talking out their asses.

Construction of the World Trade Center commenced in 1967.

They were already boring holes to take geological samples in 1963.

They ran tests with parameters calibrated for a 707-320.

I saw one of the WTC project leads on a TV program say this too Magnum.

"Mr. Robertson and others involved in design and construction of the WTC have stated that back in the 1960s they could not have planned for the jetliners of 2001. Specifically, they modeled the effects of a hit by the largest aircraft of the day, the Boeing 707-320"

Whoever or whatever you're getting your info from, is mistaken, it was designed with the largest version of the 707 in mind, the intercontinental version.

Look at the stats for a 747 Magnum, do you think some after-the-fact revisions of the type you are claiming took place would be able to impove the survivable scale of impact by 3 fold in weight and over 2 fold in fuel load? I don't. I don't think any skyscraper can withstand a 747 unless by sheer luck alone. You're talking about 3/4's of a million pounds, streaking along over at over 600 mph, loaded with up to 60,000 gallons of fuel, it's a flying incendiary bomb of the largest scale.

As far as Bush knowing ahead of time, and not acting, I am not going to take that leap, but I will echo Gabe's thoughts again, about Bush and his cronies profitting from the aftermath.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_5_58/ai_80449073

http://www.geotimes.org/nov01/NNwtc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Do not repeat the error of thinking!

Boy George and Kate Bush are responsible for 9/11??????
preposterous

Nice try Bush plumbers, no cigar.


One of the tactics used by those who support Boy George Bush is to make fun of anyone who is protesting Boy George Bush.

I stand by what I said, the 747 came out before the Towers, and therefore they took them into account.

Hello. I'm here to obfuscate the topic.

Why "Boy George Bush"? What kind of sobriquet is that?

The performer and musician known as "Boy George" has:

1. A nice voice
   
2. A pretty face
   
3. Icon of the 80s status
   
4. His own record label
   
5. An autobiography with an amusing title
   

These are things that are positive, even desirable traits. George W. Bush has none of these things. I know you're an antifan of President Bush. So, I have to ask, what is the sobriquet actually about?

Well, if we can't rely on your recollection of some discussion you claim you had with someone in 2001 regarding work that he had obstensibly done about 40 years ago as the smoking gun to indict a president with an otherwise pristine record, what can we rely upon?

I thank you for your service to humanity. We'd be lost without you.

why did building #7 fall?

Project Mayhem led by Tyler Durdan placed vans full of liquid explosives in the undeground garage next to the support pillars and timed them to go off at a moment of great confusion. He did this with information from his al-Queda connection who worked the late projectionist shift at the movie theater with him.

A week prior, President Bush received an intelligence report entitled "Fictional and Imaginary Character from Pahluniak Novel Intending to Attack Domestic Target" but he misplaced it under a pile of papers from some Libiyan or Liberian embassy on of those "L" places - maybe Lichtenstein - and so never saw it.

The Muslim Gorean, who was used to flight sims on Havok 2, was pissed that his suicide girl went against his rules and posed naked for an anti-bush sign.