Bush admits explosives were used in 9/11

[Jae Onasi]

Anything can say it's a documentary and be put up anywhere. Fact has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that millions of people eagerly discount Michael Moore, yet to the theaters his movies go. Scientists couldn't wait to take shots at Ben Stein's new movie, but it's in the theaters as well. So to suggest that making it into a theater is some sort of litmus test for "fact" is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst.

I think you read too much into what I was saying. I didn't say it was false, and never meant to imply that. I do take any 'conspiracy theory' documentaries, especially expletive-laden ones on youtube, with a pound of salt. I wasn't making a judgment call on the video itself since I hadn't seen it. I was pointing out to him that just because anything calls itself a documentary doesn't mean that a. it's really a documentary, or b. that we should believe everything it says.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that those deaths weren't a tragedy.

I never meant that either. I just wanted to give perspective. We can debate conspiracy theories to death, but it would have been a tragedy whether the government was involved directly or not.

[Achilles]

I do take any 'conspiracy theory' documentaries, especially expletive-laden ones on youtube, with a pound of salt.

Speaking of reading into things too much The clip had footage of the first plane hitting. Hopefully you'll forgive the witnesses their expletive-laden language.

 

We're in agreement on the salt though.

 

I wasn't making a judgment call on the video itself since I hadn't seen it. I was pointing out to him that just because anything calls itself a documentary doesn't mean that a. it's really a documentary, or b. that we should believe everything it says.

Okay.

 

I never meant that either. I just wanted to give perspective. We can debate conspiracy theories to death, but it would have been a tragedy whether the government was involved directly or not.

How about the theory that 19 men conspired to hijack planes and fly them into high-profile targets (and a field) on September 11th, 2001? Because that's a conspiracy theory too. It seems to me that you are rather accepting of some conspiracy theories and rather dismissive of others. You seem to favor the one promoted by the media and the gov't and I'm just wondering if there is a very good reason why.

[mimartin]

Hmm...let's see, now.

A massive great hunk of metal full of kerosene crashes into the side of a building in desparate need of major structural work...and it collapses.

A little more complicated than that

Other than substituting thousands of pounds of jet fuel for kerosene, I agree with Darth InSidious simplistic view. Cause enough damage to the structure and then let the laws of gravity take over.

 

I don’t really know how much the building were in need of major structural work, but from what I've read they were design defeats that made them vulnerable to these types of attacks. I don’t believe the terrorist knew this and I believe they just happened upon them.

 

Yes, there are many different theories about what happened and I have no way of knowing the truth, but I going with the simplest most widely accepted cause (Occarn’s Razor).

 

Since when was Kavar's invaded by people wearing tin-foil hats?

Fashion statement. Remember everyone shiny side out, it is the only way to ensure the brain probes cannot penetrate. Also don’t forget to chant.

[Darth InSidious]

At this time, I'd like to disavow any claim to authority, knowledge or expertise in, on or relating to physics.

 

Meta-physics, however, I have been known to dabble in.

[Achilles]

Other than substituting thousands of pounds of jet fuel for kerosene, I agree with Darth InSidious simplistic view. Cause enough damage to the structure and then let the laws of gravity take over.

Ok, keeping things simple: how much damage is enough? When you respond ask yourself if you really know the answer or if you are just repeating something that you've heard/been told?

 

Keep in mind that these are the only steel-frame buildings in history to collapse due to fire and they failed in under two hours whereas other similar buildings have experienced infernos lasting much longer and only suffered isolated damage. Not promoting one theory over another, just asking you to think about it and ask if that really makes sense.

 

I don’t really know how much the building were in need of major structural work, but from what I've read they were design defeats that made them vulnerable to these types of attacks.

Each building was designed to withstand mulitple airplane collisions (according to the engineers that designed it anyway).

 

Yes, there are many different theories about what happened and I have no way of knowing the truth, but I going with the simplest most widely accepted cause (Occarn’s Razor).

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're trying to apply Occam's Razor to an argument that you don't even understand because you haven't taken the time to hear it. I hope that I'm wrong.

[Jae Onasi]

Speaking of reading into things too much The clip had footage of the first plane hitting. Hopefully you'll forgive the witnesses their expletive-laden language.

Actually, that came from a brief mod discussion and not your comments. I have no doubt there were a lot of 'Holy sh##!'s uttered that day, and I would never blame them for that.

 

 

How about the theory that 19 men conspired to hijack planes and fly them into high-profile targets (and a field) on September 11th, 2001? Because that's a conspiracy theory too. It seems to me that you are rather accepting of some conspiracy theories and rather dismissive of others. You seem to favor the one promoted by the media and the gov't and I'm just wondering if there is a very good reason why.

Hijackings are planned out and executed with, unfortunately, some frequency. Al Qaeda had already demonstrated their ablity to attack the WTC with some success.

 

Gov't plans to put explosives in a building in the biggest city in the country, the Pentagon, and possibly the Capitol (where apparently no explosives have been found) and then hiring guys to fly planes into these structures at just the right moment so we all could pretend it was bin Ladin but attack Iraq where he's not sounds more far-fetched.

 

I don't know about you, but there was nothing else on that day but news about what happened. You'd figure at least one major news organization would have caught explosions after analyzing all that footage ad nauseum. I didn't see evidence of extra explosions that day. Granted any video can be altered, but arranging for all the news organizations to use the same doctored videos seems quite unlikely.

 

I also think that a heavy plane loaded with jet fuel and flying at 600 mph (or whatever their speed was at the time) could wreak havoc with the structural integrity of a skyscraper even without the fires. A friend of mine is a firefighter on the NYC hazmat team and was at ground zero on 9/11. He's not put stock into other conspiracy theories. The planes had sufficient force and the heat from the fires did sufficient damage to allow this scenario to happen. If anyone knows what fire can do to buildings, he does. You, of course, are not required to believe him since you haven't talked to him.

 

Your infernos in other steel buildings example does not apply--those buildings were not first hit with airplanes. The engineers may have thought the buildings would survive airplane strikes, but it doesn't sound like they also included fuel-enhanced fire in the equation.

 

The results of the investigation seem to explain the events without further complicating it with shadowy agents planting explosives in the WTC, Pentagon, Capitol, managing to keep that secret (I've never known any American gov't agency that could keep something of that magnitude secret), bribe all news outlets into outright lying and managing to keep -that- secret, etc.

 

Al Qaeda had already attacked the WTC. It's not far-fetched to think they'd try again to be more 'successful'.

[Achilles]

Hijackings are planned out and executed with, unfortunately, some frequency. Al Qaeda had already demonstrated their ablity to attack the WTC with some success.

I think you're missing the point. I am not questioning that these men conspired to hijack the planes. The point is that both explanations can accurately described as "conspiracy theories" however only one carries a connotation with it.

 

Gov't plans to put explosives in a building in the biggest city in the country, the Pentagon, and possibly the Capitol (where apparently no explosives have been found) and then hiring guys to fly planes into these structures at just the right moment so we all could pretend it was bin Ladin but attack Iraq where he's not sounds more far-fetched.

I'm not aware of any suggestions that explosives were placed in the Pentagon or in the Capitol. I'm also not familiar with any suggestions that the hijackers were hired by anyone (other than al-Queda, I suppose). Could you please tell me where you're hearing these suggestions so that I can see what else they have to say?

 

I don't know about you, but there was nothing else on that day but news about what happened. You'd figure at least one major news organization would have caught explosions after analyzing all that footage ad nauseum. I didn't see evidence of extra explosions that day. Granted any video can be altered, but arranging for all the news organizations to use the same doctored videos seems quite unlikely.

There were lots of media reports of explosions and discussion regarding the possibility of bombs. They discuss them at length in several of the videos that are available.

 

FWIW though, I tend not to put too much into them though because everyone knows that eyewitness accounts tend to be sketchy at best. I do find the pervasiveness of them pretty interesting though.

 

I also think that a heavy plane loaded with jet fuel and flying at 600 mph (or whatever their speed was at the time) could wreak havoc with the structural integrity of a skyscraper even without the fires.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

As I pointed out above, interviews with a member of the team responsible for the buildings' construction indicate that both structures were designed to withstand multiple airplane crashes.

 

A friend of mine is a firefighter on the NYC hazmat team and was at ground zero on 9/11. He's not put stock into other conspiracy theories. The planes had sufficient force and the heat from the fires did sufficient damage to allow this scenario to happen. If anyone knows what fire can do to buildings, he does. You, of course, are not required to believe him since you haven't talked to him.

Do I take his word over the firefighters interviewed in more than a few of the films available? They were at ground zero also. What about the recordings of firefighters that were in the building but didn't survive to give interviews? They would be equally trained, no?

 

Your infernos in other steel buildings example does not apply--those buildings were not first hit with airplanes.

Okay

 

The engineers may have thought the buildings would survive airplane strikes, but it doesn't sound like they also included fuel-enhanced fire in the equation.

Engineers planned for airplanes, just not airplanes carrying fuel. Got it.

 

The results of the investigation seem to explain the events without further complicating it with shadowy agents planting explosives in the WTC, Pentagon, Capitol, managing to keep that secret (I've never known any American gov't agency that could keep something of that magnitude secret), bribe all news outlets into outright lying and managing to keep -that- secret, etc.

Thanks goodness for easy answers from our government

 

Al Qaeda had already attacked the WTC. It's not far-fetched to think they'd try again to be more 'successful'.

I agree.

[The Source]

Did anyone mention that they were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

[Darth InSidious]

I don't think so. Why?

[The Source]

I don't think so. Why?

I thought someone would blame 9/11 on an invasion from Mars, so I was checking to see if someone knew about the hijackers actual origins.

[EnderWiggin]

I thought someone would blame 9/11 on an invasion from Mars, so I was checking to see if someone knew about the hijackers actual origins.

 

This is neither helpful nor relevant, IMHO. The origins of the hijackers weren't disputed.

 

_EW_

[DarthJebus05]

Though, we can all agree that explosives were used as part of the 9/11 attacks, just as Bush revealed accidentally. And when the leaseholder of this buildings said to "pull" it, "they" pulled the building (demolition term of bringing down a building). In the documentary, it said it would take weeks of planning and the bombs would have to be put in place before the attacks. And he did make $5 billion from the destruction of those buildings.

[Corinthian]

Funny, I don't see a video or an article where that's stated...maybe if you could substantiate your claims, I might lend you a hairsbreadth of credence.

 

Okay. Metallugry 101, kids.

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

 

Now, are we done here?

[mimartin]

Ok, keeping things simple: how much damage is enough? When you respond ask yourself if you really know the answer or if you are just repeating something that you've heard/been told?[/Quote] I’m not avoiding the questions, but there is no way to answer these questions and you know it. I’m not a structural engineer and they cannot even agree on these questions.

 

Not promoting one theory over another, just asking you to think about it and ask if that really makes sense.[/Quote] No, but it makes more sense than the alternative. At least if I want to sleep at night.

 

Each building was designed to withstand mulitple airplane collisions (according to the engineers that designed it anyway).[/Quote]

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building [/Quote] I know the video states multiple, but according to the NIST it was a single impact.

[Achilles]

I’m not avoiding the questions, but there is no way to answer these questions and you know it. I’m not a structural engineer and they cannot even agree on these questions.

Neither am I

 

However if we must admit that we don't know the answer to something, then I don't know what we gain by pretending that we do.

 

...and that was my point.

 

No, but it makes more sense than the alternative. At least if I want to sleep at night.

I can't help you with that.

 

I know the video states multiple, but according to the NIST it was a single impact.

They might be absolutely right and this information might be absolutely accurate. However it might also be reasonable to be skeptical of a government funded study that was conducted after the fact. My 2 cents.

 

Question for you: If we were reading about some similar tragedy in Africa or South America (places known for having corrupt governments), do you think we would be so quick to dismiss reports of conspiratorial acts carried out by the government against their own citizens? Is it possible that our egocentric thinking tells us that stuff that only happens to "other countries"?

[Jae Onasi]

I think you're missing the point. I am not questioning that these men conspired to hijack the planes. The point is that both explanations can accurately described as "conspiracy theories" however only one carries a connotation with it.

The difference is one scenario actually happened, the other is wishful thinking by people trying to accuse the gov't of something it likely shouldn't be accused of.

I'm not aware of any suggestions that explosives were placed in the Pentagon or in the Capitol. I'm also not familiar with any suggestions that the hijackers were hired by anyone (other than al-Queda, I suppose). Could you please tell me where you're hearing these suggestions so that I can see what else they have to say?

Oh geez. How many ridiculous theories have you heard over the years? I've heard hundreds. I didn't catalog them. Have you sourced all the ridiculous theories you've heard? I've seen a youtube vid of some supposed explosion happening at the Pentagon prior to the plane actually making impact (which by definition requires explosives to have been planted prior). I've heard people speculate that the gov't adjusted the information to make it look like Al Qaeda hired the terrorists when it was some super-secret black ops thing. Most of it was pure crap and half-baked pseudo-science, and I didn't waste brain space remembering where I'd seen/heard that stuff.

 

There were lots of media reports of explosions and discussion regarding the possibility of bombs. They discuss them at length in several of the videos that are available.

FWIW though, I tend not to put too much into them though because everyone knows that eyewitness accounts tend to be sketchy at best. I do find the pervasiveness of them pretty interesting though.

When the B-25 hit the Empire state building, people thought they heard bomb-like explosions, too.

Thank you for your opinion.

As I pointed out above, interviews with a member of the team responsible for the buildings' construction indicate that both structures were designed to withstand multiple airplane crashes.

They were designed to withstand crashes by 707s, not 767's which are considerably heavier and fly faster. The 767s hit with about 3.4 times greater force than what the designers anticipated.

 

From the Fema report:

The WTC towers were the first buildings outside of the military and nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960's design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds. However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with considerably greater weight, or mass, and traveling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact. (p. I-17)

Before anyone gets their shorts in knots about the different sizes of Boeing 707s, note that the report says 'the Boeing 707 that was considered in the [1960's] design' was the one listed above in the quote.

 

Do I take his word over the firefighters interviewed in more than a few of the films available? They were at ground zero also. What about the recordings of firefighters that were in the building but didn't survive to give interviews? They would be equally trained, no?

If they're also hazmat trained firefighters (because that is an extra, very specific level of training), then they might have the same credibility. Have you identified the full credentials of all the firefighters in those films?

 

Okay

A B-25 Mitchell is considerably smaller (MTOW 34,000 lbs), flies a lot slower (272 mph), and has a much smaller fuel load of 974 gallons than a Boeing 767's 23,980 gallons. I don't see how you can possibly begin to compare those. Not to mention they use 2 different fuel types.

Engineers planned for airplanes, just not airplanes carrying fuel. Got it.

OK, that did sound dumb on its own so let me clarify: they did not plan for a 767 of that weight going that speed with that great of a load of fuel.

 

Thanks goodness for easy answers from our government

Well, there are some things that don't fit any of the scenarios well. There are so many things that happened on that day that we'll never know completely understand because the forensic data is destroyed. I understand that some of the remaining evidence can be viewed and/or twisted to fit various theories.

 

The simplest explanation is still 'bad guys ram planes into WTC, this causes tremendous structural strain on the building both from physical and fire damage, buildings collapse under the strain'.

 

Any conspiracy theory is much more complex and has room for way too many errors to happen. For example, this theory, which may or may not be grounded in some reality and/or fantasy: 'bad guys, who may or may not have been hired by the the CIA, KGB, MI-6, Guoanbu, and/or the Mossad to make it look like an Al Qaeda plot (and Saddam Hussein if we can at all possibly implicate him), were sent on a mission to plow some planes into buildings that we had pre-wired with explosives to collapse in the event of, shockingly, just such an occurrence, so that we could make sure lots of Americans die (and Brits too, we're sorry about that, Your Majesty, but it's all for a good cause!). That way, we'll get lots and lots of sympathy from the American (and maybe British) people so that we can go whack Osama bin Ladin, who we've blamed for this whether he did it or not, take out the Taliban because we don't like how they've covered up women so we can't leer at them anymore, and most importantly, get a bunch of bad intel and quite possibly completely made-up crap in Iraq to give us an excuse to go beat the snot out of Hussein, especially if it looks real enough to fool Powell. That should provide us with enough sympathy (and/or abject stupidity) from the American people (and the Brits because we like to fight with them, not against them) so that we can take out Saddam & Sons and Make Iraq (and maybe Afghanistan) A Bastion of Democracy in the Middle East (even if the real reason is just to get back at Saddam). Oh, and by the way, we're going to swear several hundred people to abject secrecy, despite the fact that some of them can be bought at any time for the right price. If any secrets do leak out, like in the FBI, we'll just 'make sure' that the leaks are never made again and we'll make up even more outrageous stories to cover our first stories. That way, Bush can have 'his little war", and we will have promoted Truth, Justice, and The American Way to the world!'

 

Sure, that's pretty simple. I might find a way add in some aliens while we're at it.

[DarthJebus05]

Funny, I don't see a video or an article where that's stated...maybe if you could substantiate your claims, I might lend you a hairsbreadth of credence.

 

Okay. Metallugry 101, kids.

 

 

 

Now, are we done here?

 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

 

:EDIT: Just because you don't believe theres a conspiracy, does not mean the people that do, are idiots. I'm not naming names, but you know who you are.

[Achilles]

The difference is one scenario actually happened, the other is wishful thinking by people trying to accuse the gov't of something it likely shouldn't be accused of.

You're still missing the point, but that's okay

 

Oh geez. How many ridiculous theories have you heard over the years? I've heard hundreds. I didn't catalog them.

If you don't have a source, then I can't rule out that you're just making this up.*

 

* Awww...come on, Achilles! Was that comment really necessary? You know how difficult it would be to look out for those sources after all that time given the incredible number of ridiculous things that have been posted on the net about that event. Don't forget that this is a starwars forum...Jae wasn't making a Master dissertation. Posting sources is good but not being able to do so shouldn't discourage people from posting. Instead of implying that she could be making things up why not simply say that you'd like to see the source? No need to be so hard on people! - d3

 

edit: I think there may have been a false alarm on the snark-detector, d3 .

 

Have you sourced all the ridiculous theories you've heard? I've seen a youtube vid of some supposed explosion happening at the Pentagon prior to the plane actually making impact (which by definition requires explosives to have been planted prior).

I haven't seen it so I can't comment. If I find it at some point then maybe I'll be able to then.

 

To the best of my knowledge however, only 5 frames of footage have been released and they don't match what you're describing here, so either your source was making it up or you are. *shrugs*

 

Keep in mind that the Pentagon and surrounding building have multiple security cameras both indoors and out and if the government really wanted to shut up the "conspiracy theorists" all they would have to do is show about 10 seconds of footage from any of them (and allow an independent expert to confirm that the footage wasn't doctored of course).

 

See, that's how you quiet people with bad information: you provide indisputable evidence to the contrary. Poorly funded, slapped together, biased-sourced "investigations" that take place years after the fact don't necessarily meet that standard.

I've heard people speculate that the gov't adjusted the information to make it look like Al Qaeda hired the terrorists when it was some super-secret black ops thing.

Again, this isn't something I've heard, so I can't comment. If you find that source, please let me know.

 

Most of it was pure crap and half-baked pseudo-science, and I didn't waste brain space remembering where I'd seen/heard that stuff.

Did you attend some course to become an expert in crap spotting? Are you credentialled? Or are you asking me to adopt your opinion for no good reason?

 

If I am missing the point entirely because you have rational arguments based on critial thinking that you would like to present, then please forgive my obtuseness and know that I am prepared to read whatever you'd like to post whenever you'd like to post it.

 

When the B-25 hit the Empire state building, people thought they heard bomb-like explosions, too.

Not sure what your point is here.

 

From the Fema report

Do you have an unbiased source? For reasons which I hope are obvious, I'm not willing to take a government report at face value.

 

If they're also hazmat trained firefighters (because that is an extra, very specific level of training), then they might have the same credibility. Have you identified the full credentials of all the firefighters in those films?

Which of these credentials make him or her uniquely qualified to makes such an assessment?

 

As for the 2nd part of your question: I have not, but feel free to assume that they are similarly qualified for the sake of my point.

 

A B-25 Mitchell is considerably smaller (MTOW 34,000 lbs), flies a lot slower (272 mph), and has a much smaller fuel load of 974 gallons than a Boeing 767's 23,980 gallons. I don't see how you can possibly begin to compare those. Not to mention they use 2 different fuel types.

Your comment was that they had not been struck by a plane. The evidence is to the contrary. Perhaps you wanted to convey some other point though?

 

OK, that did sound dumb on its own so let me clarify: they did not plan for a 767 of that weight going that speed with that great of a load of fuel.

Source please?

 

Well, there are some things that don't fit any of the scenarios well. There are so many things that happened on that day that we'll never know completely understand because the forensic data is destroyed.

Gee, this sounds awfully familiar to what JediMaster12 and I said in posts 22 and 23 respectively.

 

The simplest explanation is still 'bad guys ram planes into WTC, this causes tremendous structural strain on the building both from physical and fire damage, buildings collapse under the strain'.

Simple yes. The simpler explanation still would be that the buildings wanted to fall down all along and the planes just helped. However, I suspect that we're all aiming just a little bit higher than "simple". I suspect that many of us would perfer an explanation that fits all the evidence. As you pointed out above, there are some things "that don't fit". If some things "don't fit" then it's impossible that the offered explanation fits all the evidence.

 

Any conspiracy theory is much more complex and has room for way too many errors to happen.

<snip>

Nicely done!

 

Seems just as complex as the "official story" though so I'm not sure how that supports your point.

 

Sure, that's pretty simple. I might find a way add in some aliens while we're at it.

It's your fiction. Go nuts

 

:EDIT: Just because you don't believe theres a conspiracy, does not mean the people that do, are idiots. I'm not naming names, but you know who you are.

*adds DarthJebus05 to Buddy List*

 

EDIT: For those interested in hearing from the WTC construction project manager : Link

[Darth InSidious]

I thought the Jesuits used their telekinetic mind powers to bring the towers down...

 

DISPROVE ME.

[Achilles]

I thought the Jesuits used their telekinetic mind powers to bring the towers down...

 

DISPROVE ME.

You do this just to hear me rant about burden of proof, I know it. *

 

Edit: Oooh...burden of proof! That falls within my area of expertise! I can rant about that too! - d3

[Web Rider]

I'd reply with a lot of text on how when you remove the 61st floor from between the 60th and 62nt floors, there's nothing to support the top of the building and that(now unsupported) building is very heavy, but this should be rather obvious.

[Corinthian]

Okay, you're telling me that untrained people from a long distance could tell the difference in sound from a secondary explosion to steel giving way under pressure and entire floors collapsing on top of each other? I mean, that's off the cuff stuff. I'd probably have thought it was secondary explosions too at the time. But with the benefit of hindsight, I think it can be reasonably stated that they were mistaken about secondary explosions.

[Achilles]

I'd reply with a lot of text on how when you remove the 61st floor from between the 60th and 62nt floors, there's nothing to support the top of the building and that(now unsupported) building is very heavy, but this should be rather obvious.

Link

Date: February 27, 1993

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

 

"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," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

 

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

 

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

[Corinthian]

So he screwed up his calculations, didn't reckon for certain factors. What does that prove, exactly, Achilles? The guy was wrong.

[Web Rider]

B-25 "Mitchell" Bomber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Mitchell

Boeing 757: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

 

A casual glance will tell us two things. One: that the Boeing 757 was built after the WTC(some 20 years or so), and two, that the Boeing 757 travels much faster, and is significantly larger, than the B-25(The 757 is 41.2m, and the B-57 is 16.1m, 757 wingspan is 38m, B57 is 20m). Therefore entailing more force in the acceleration times mass equation, and more fuel.

 

I also have to wonder what relevance a 200 pound bomb has to do with anything. the difference between a 200 pound bomb and hundred-ton+ plane moving at over 200 mph filled with massive quantities of jet fuel should be obvious to anyone with eyes.

 

The steel supports on the damaged floors holding the floors above them are designed to take vertical pressure and slight horizontal movement. Additionally the construction differences between the Empire State Building, built some 30 years earlier, make the effects of a powerful impact entirely different. To be specific, the ESB was designed from the top down, and based on the plans of an even earlier building.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building)