9/11 Un-debunked Version 2.0: Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes

[mikebyrd42069]

"truthers "are retarded

[nb45001]

@mikebyrd42069 truthers may be retarded but bush beleivers are handicaped

[Audiodump]

@nb45001

They don't believe bush, they believe physicists and architects.

[nb45001]

@Audiodump yeah government ones

[Audiodump]

@nb45001

And independent ones. 

[PoetryHound]

There wasn't a lot of experience with planes crashing into skyscrapers at the time the WTC was built. The designers didn't have a lot of real world data to go on when they conducted their studies. I think there was a little braggadocio in their claims that the towers could withstand plane crashes.

[shaneclone15]

A plane cant take down a building with fire !! Any size plane or fuel cant !! This is already been proving dont think to hard all u stupid ppl mite hurt ur head!! Assholes lol

[AlexanderTheGood89]

@shaneclone15

lol. These are my favourite type of truthers.

[derekmjensen]

Stupid video stupid music inconclusive evidence from a guy blacking on with no proof, I will stick to what bomb experts are saying... That I wasn't an inside job conspiracy theorists need to get a life they have too much time on their hands

[Holysmoke2007]

The twin towers would last forever.

100% steel will never buckle if always supervised its structure.

[BadBunnyRides]

Fail...All this vid shows is people trying to cover their reputations. The fact remains over 300 engineers, 1,200 civilian contractors and 240 Experts in demolition from 16 Countries agree this was not a "Controlled Demolition" and the collapse was in fact due to the planes hitting the Towers and the fires that resulted from it.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@BadBunnyRides

Wrong. This video shows there were several pre-9/11 studies which showed that the Towers should have survived the impacts and the ensuing fires. And over 1200 architects and engineers agree the buildings should not have collapsed from the impacts too.

[BadBunnyRides]

@citizenfor911truth1 No they didn't, I have never seen or heard of any "1200 architects and engineers" saying this was true. I have seen the studies done by those I listed and they are available to you as well. The French one is a bit harsh to read but it's there (they call us "idiots" and "delusional" a few times in it). The one by the German Bundeswehr Army School of Structural Engineering was a bit more forgiving.

[SnickerFizz123]

@citizenfor911truth1 That doesn't prove anything at all. The engineers who built the Twin Towers didn't have any idea that the Boeing 767 would be actually developed. Both towers COULD withstand an impact from a Boeing 707 going at 600 mph, but not a Boeing 767 or 757 going over 650 mph.

[citizenfor911truth1]

@SnickerFizz123

"but not a Boeing 767 or 757 going over 650 mph." You need to double-check your figures. The official reports say that the planes that hit the buildings were travelling at 440 and 540 mph.

[SnickerFizz123]

@citizenfor911truth1 Yeah, but the airframe of a Boeing 767 is actually stronger than that of a Boeing 707. If the Twin Towers were actually built to withstand a 767, they would still be standing in NYC.

[Holysmoke2007]

@BadBunnyRides no arguement, didnt see it!

[nb45001]

@BadBunnyRides wrong



[BadBunnyRides]

@nb45001 Yeah!...Two 80 Ton ( that's 160,000 pounds ) ,fully fueled airplanes, traveling at over 500 MPH, wouldn't have done a thing to those buildings.

...oh wait, yes they did :P

[rigatony019]

truthers are getting desperate...

[mooners40]

an award winning building ? Cheap flimsy piece of crap? Hmm - i think the guys who built it would have a lot to say about that

[chunkyboy100]

do you think charlie thornton may have been "got at"?

wow talk about change ya mind!