People here have been a big deal about how designers of the WTC said the towers would withstand a 707 hitting it. I think Robertson may have been mistaken about the affects of an airliner crashing into the WTC and the subsequent fire.

At http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB Robertson says in part;

A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993). In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”

So do you believe that he might have been mistaken about how an airliner crashing into the WTC would affect it?

Ranb

I do not know.

However, one of the more dubious claims made down here in hurricane alley is that buildings and windows are "built to withstand 150 mph winds." The merchants sell the materials that make this claim and to their credit, they can withstand 150mgh winds.

Right up until you put debris in the windstream. When a 2X4 is hurled into one of these windows or buildings, the materials oftend do not withstand the impact.

The impact of the 707 may in fact be right. However, it may not have factored in the spilling fuel or the explosions that may be caused by engines and what have you impacting the building.

So do you think truthers will stop throwing around the "Robertson said the towers would stand up to a 707, so it must have been CD"?

Ranb

I think the important point is that they did survive the impact of a 757. That's why the vast majority of the occupants were able to excape to safety.

I've never heard anyone say that. Most merely list that as one tiny bit of info pointing to the fact that there were bombs in the building. Nice strawman though, as per usual. :)

"The main tactic used by the government huggers is to isolate each new piece of evidence and debate it as if in a vacuum. This "divide and conquer" tactic is designed to focus disinfo effort on a single piece of the evidence at a time, claim that the evidence has been refuted (often erroneously) and then expand this questionable refutation into an attempted refutation of the entire subject under discussion." -Mike Rivero

Strawman? Do not think so. Sounds more like moving the goal posts.

It seems to me that the cornerstones of the "it must be CD" were the bullsh-t "never before has a tall building fell due to fire" and "Robertson says the WTC could withstand a 707 crash".

Are you sure you have not played the Robertson card before?

Ranb

I'm not sure who a government-hugger would be, but I'm certainly not one. However, I do think the proper way to look into a big complex event is to isolate each new piece and figure out if it can stand. If it can't, you throw it out. When you're done with all of them, you see what conclusion the remaining pieces of evidence point to.

Well, Robertson was one of the jr members of the design team. The lead designer was Skilling, he was the one who did the real work, and yeah, he didn't forget about the fire aspect. Robertson was just covering up. There's an interview with him and Prof. Jones that makes it clear how careful he is to qualify anything he says. He didn't argue a single technical point with Jones, he would say things like "I can't comment since I haven't read that study, done the research" or something to that effect. His strongest argument with Jones was that we shouldn't be asking these questions, need to move on. Talk about a cop out.

You wish. The golden rule of troof is never put your grab bag of random conspiracy "evidence" and "theory" together into a single coherent story, for a very good reason - the more pieces you put together, the more absurd and ridiculous the assembled conspiracy contraption begins to look. It leads to uncomfortable questions like "how many thousands of people were in on this plot?"

Its the same reason questions like "if they wanted to invade Iraq, how come none of the hijackers were Iraqi" or "if they were such evil plotters why wouldn't they plant WMDs in Iraq"? are shunned, the burden of logical consistency is unbearable for troofers.

This is sort of like the quote mining and video editing used by those who want to promote their views about 9/11. Like when someone finds a few frames of OBL with a distorted face then claims it was not OBL on tape claiming responsibility for the WTC attack. Or quoting one of the terrorists flight instructors who said his flying sucked, but leaving out the part where the instructor thought the terrorists would have been able to fly well enough to crash into the WTC.

Ranb

Oh really? Even if these comments are true, I never head any troofer using Robertson's claims about the strength of the WTC with any qualifying comments.

Ranb