http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album2/index.html

She burned for 2 days, no fall down... comprende?

Well people always argue that since that building was not hit by an aircraft we can't compare that to the WTC towers, eventhough the fire is claimed to be the nr 1 cause of the collapses, not the planes, eventhough most of the fuel burned off outside.

But ok, lets agree with that just for fun, what about WTC 7? The Madrid fire was way worse, it's like comparing a punch in the chest (wtc 7) and 5 kicks in the nuts (madrid fire) LOL!

So if we go along with the idea that fire caused WTC 7's collapse, logically the Windsor building should have collapsed. The top ten floors or something did fall off, but the rest off the building remained standing.

Its incredible but true!
You CAN blow up buildings in Manhattan and get away with it, steal two elections and the president before you can LIE and NOT get impeached!

Talk about the land of opportunity! haha!

A kick to the nuts haha! Thats great!


BUTT seriously, the um Madrid fire is grat to put in the faces of those who oppose, but... regarding the airplane crashes, the towers were OVER designed to withstand 2 airplanes crashing into them...

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 4

The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OU BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html