When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this

  • frostwhitewolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    They actually did design the buildings to survive such incidents, which is one of the many reasons that makes it all a bit fishy

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      They designed the buildings to implode because on the 60s and 70s there was a worry that buildings would topple over onto neighbouring buildings if damaged or compromised, and was a legitimate concern as architects were putting forth designs using less reinforcement because they didn’t need as much half a century earlier to build things like the empire state building thanks to better building techniques and materials.

      They did exactly what they were designed to do when their integrity was compromised to the point to failure, which is impressive feet. Just ask any engineer what happens when a small but dense and fast moving object slams into the end of a second class lever.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      The buildings were designed to withstand a small or medium sized aircraft at a relatively low speed with low fuel, similar to the incident with the Empire State Building. It’s not uncommon for other buildings to be built to similar standards, so I don’t see how this would be fishy. It’s a pair of skyscrapers, the threat of a plane hitting them accidentally during bad weather was a possibility. They were not designed to withstand a modern airliner travelling at an incredibly high speed with a full load of fuel. The fact they survived as long as they did is miraculous.