Well, it would be unreasonable to expect the designers to have designed for somebody deliberately ramming an aircraft in to the Twin Towers, since there would be a difference between slow cruiseing speed, which one might expect an airliner lost in bad weather to be traveling at and high cruise speed or emergency thrust, which one might expect what, the aircraft that hit the towers were doing. That said, a Boeing 707 or Douglas 8 out out New York and on a non stop transatlantic flight, would have had a significant fuel load and had one of those aircraft crashed in to the WTC in an accident, I have my doubts the building would have done significantly better. I would believe that the buildings would still have been subject to catastrophic failure and even if one adds say one hour to the time after aircraft impact that the Towers suffer catastrophic failure, all I believe that would achieve,is that there is a greater possability for a completely evacuation of the floors below the aircraft impact, the people above still die.

My technical knowledge of building construction, is not sufficent to know if it is feasible / practical to do this in a very high building but my theory of how to make a building safer, would be to construct the emergency stairwells as indepentent free standing structures, with armoured interfaces to the rest of the buiding.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

__________________
"Ik val aan, volg mij!" Schout-bij-nacht Karel Willem Frederik Marie Doorman February 28 1942.

Leslie Robertson, in retrospect, agrees with your assessment. Fire based scenarios were not part of his work load and his calculations on a 707 were groundbreaking at the time and were in no way required. In other words, nobody was saying these design characteristics needed to be considered before the OK was given to build the towers.

Your idea for making a building safer would probably have saved a few more lives on 9/11, but would making that type of stairwell a requirement be worth it? It would make the costs of buildings, especially high rises, go through the roof. OK.... bad analogy...

I am not sure when you refer to a "few more lives on 9/11", what you are referring too. It would likely have saved everybody on the floors above where the aircraft struck, that had the mobility and speed of walking to leave the building before it collapsed. But if you are saying it has a cost and people loose their lives in all sorts of ways, for example car accidents and it might be expensive and save relatively few lives in terms of the overall numbers of people who loose their lives in accidents over a given period, you would have a point.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

__________________
"Ik val aan, volg mij!" Schout-bij-nacht Karel Willem Frederik Marie Doorman February 28 1942.

How many times am I going to have to shoot down this (*)(*)(*)(*) theory that the gov was resposible.

1.When you watch the video the building calapsed and pancakes form where the plane hits not from where the belived bombs planted were exploding.

2. the so called explotions can be explained by a simple experiment. Take a container filled with some substance like water or baby powder cut a small hole in the side and press down on it and watter with shoot out the hole thats what the people saw.

3. Why dont they produce the people that they are still alive.

4 explain the phone calls on the plane that was headed to the white house where everyone retaliated.

5. They have tryed to blow up the trade center before.

6. There was alot more burning than just the Jet fule

7. It was clear the building was going to pancake because when the plane hits debris shoots out all sides of the building showing compleat penitration.

8. If the governmet really wanted to blow up a building there are so many easier safer more practical ways to destroy a building. There are so many veriables that can go wrong. Why would they go through all this trouble when they can do something a simple as useing an explosive truck or something like that.

It was terrorist thats the truth. I cant understand why people are so hell bent trying to make their fellow countrymen look so bad just because he was a republican. If obama or gore or clinton would have been in no one would have considered the government involment.

I dont like bush or obama but I dont wish for them to fail or make up lies about them

__________________
"One of the best indoor sports, feeling sorry for yourself. A sport enjoyed by all, especially the born losers." Burt Gordon
The Hustler

I like your response, pakuaman...it's simple and has a lot of common sense and logic.
Myself... I'm sitting on the fence, ready to fall either way, but am leaning just a wee bit.

A few years ago I read the Kennedy and Martin Luther King stories and I am convinced it wasn't Lee Oswald and Ray... it was inside jobs by CIA and FBI!!

Then there is the story about Pearl Harbor! Of course, one can shove it all away as conspiracy theories.
My suspicion has been aroused and I prefer to keep my eyes and ears open.
Deception is a great tool in the military, why not in politics, too?

The difference between the conspiracies you mention and the 9/11 conspiracies is the number of people who would have to be involved / in on the conspiracy not only before and during the attack, but heavily involved in the coverup after the fact. Assassination of one man? Hard, but doable IMHO. Squelching a warning to Pearl? Again hard but doable. You have to remember, Roosevelt had to get his information from somewhere, and the people he got his information got their information from others and so on.

To put it in a different perspective, imagine CTers claiming Pearl Harbor wasn't done by the Japanese at all, but by our own government to catapult us into WWII despite Japan's acknowledgement of the deed. The parallels to the 9/11 conspiracies are rather startling.

There is a major difference between the assassination of JFK and conspiracy theories about that event and the allegation that 9/11 was the work of the US Government and that the twin towers of the World Trade Center were brought down by by explosives placed in Towers, not the aircraft hitting them. Like JFK is only one man, one bullet that hits him in a vital organ is enough to kill him. 9/11 is a huge operation compared to the killing of one man, even if that man was the president of the United States. All it takes is one man with a rifle to kill JFK, so it plausible to go from there with a hypothesis that Oswald had nothing to do with it. However from the get go with 9/11 one get in to all sorts of problems, like if the Towers were brought down by controlled charges, what purpose did flying the planes in to them serve? Who flew the planes in to the Towers? If the planes were not flown in the Twin Towers but it was some sort of sophisticated holographic projection, where did the planes and the passengers go?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

__________________
"Ik val aan, volg mij!" Schout-bij-nacht Karel Willem Frederik Marie Doorman February 28 1942.

Yes, I agree it is a lot easier to eliminate one person than it is to start a war on a pretense.
I just found Freedman's version on how Pearl Harbor was set up to get the Japanese to attack, so the US could enter WWII and fight against Germany. Germany and Japan were allies at the time and either one would help the other, if attacked. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/benfree.htm

-----------------------------------------------
From this article one can see, how the US got into the First WW and then into the Second WW. Germany NEVER attacked America.

We know how the US lied to start the Iraq war. We also know it was the guys from the PNAC who planned that war. We also know that a lot of those guys were Jews/Zionists and definitely had an interest in having big brother USA come over and eliminate Israel's enemies.
http://www.reasoned.org/e_PNAC2.htm

So, it appears almost a logical sequence that 9/11 was carefully planned to make it look like an attack, so the States could get into the Middle East, the worlds biggest oil and gas region. HOW they figured it all out is over my head. There is certainly room for reasonable doubt. Same with Pearl Harbor... why would Roosevelt sacrifice hundreds, or was it thousands, of sailors? For what?

I guess we will forever puzzle over these events, that's what makes them so intriguing.

On Sept 11 2001 I was the Captain of a small NY volunteer ambulance corp out in the suburbs ... Mutual aid shuffled us all in to help cover for those that were gone and those trying to rescue those gone... I have spoken to folks who were on the scene and folks who were on the ground at the time...

THERE WERE NO SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS...and in memory of my brothers who died there... KNOCK OFF the conspiracy bs.. and let my brothers rest in peace... trust me if I thought for one second someone in Washington (other thatn Clinton for letting Bin laden GO) I would be on their doorstep ranting and raving.. but its not so... And one of the reasons terrorism works is the terrorists have the odds on their side to pull it off PLUS if they can get us fighting amongst ourselves their victory broadens... So let the dead rest peacefully,just say a prayer for their souls whenever you see a firetruck or an ambulance ,

I am sorry for your loss and the losses of everyone on that day. Respect for those who died and especially those who died so that others could live truly does strike a fundamental chord within me. Respect for these people is one of the main reasons I debate those who claim someone else was responsible for 9/11, including those who actually claim the FDNY was in on the conspiracy.