Frank Demartini statement: "designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash"

[deconstruct911]

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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU

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. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

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

As pointed out the planes on 9/11 had less than half of the fuel capacity of a FULLY LOADED boeing 707. I don't think the "fog" arguemnt or "less fuel" arguement has much relevance but draw your own conclusions.

[LARED]

1. draw your own conclusions.

Ok,

Same idiotic speculation about something CTe'r have almost no understanding about that has been posted ad nauseam for about nine years.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Why do "debunkers" feel they can co-opt expertise?

Really, what the hell qualifies your "understanding" of the subject? Oh right, belligerent hubris. You guys claiming scientific expertise is like Glenn Beck reclaiming civil rights.

[William Seger]

8. You don't know what you're talking about

In the '60s when the WTC was designed, the best that engineers could do was to make some educated guesses about the damage that a plane crash would do, and then evaluate how the building would react with those damaged or destroyed structural elements. They didn't have the ability to study the effects of a large fire, so those effects were not included in their study at all -- a fact which conspiracists insist on ignoring. There wasn't (and still isn't) any "plane crash formula" for them to plug "707" and "WTC" into, nor any significant theoretical or empirical knowledge to draw on. Even today with lots of fast computers, they can't do a great deal better, since computer modeling also requires a lot of educated guesses.

Conspiractists are the ones who think they can co-opt expertise. Richard Gage claims to have "over 1200 architectural and engineering professionals" on board, yet not a one of them has been able to mount a serious technical challenge to the NIST studies.

[SDuderstadt]

9. Yet you feel like you can disregard the expertise of...

NIST, ASCE, Purdue, etc.

More unintentional irony. Hysterical.

[LARED]

11. Well when you start quoting experts in the subject you might have

a legitimate issue.

Frank Demartini was the on-site construction manager since 1993. He is not a design engineer, nor a structural engineer, He was the manager of construction activities while the building was in use. He is hardly an expert in the design capabilities of the towers under the conditions of 9/11. Nor does he provide any detail as to what design criteria was used for the 707 impact. What was the assumed speed? What was the assumed weight? What was the extent of the fire? A real expert would need to know these and far more to make a comment worthy of taking notice.

Is Mr. Demartini a expert on life safety systems? Did the original designers consider that the fire sprinklers would fail? Do you know that? Does Mr Demartini tell us? Nope. He is not the expert thrther need. There are plenty of experts in the world, remarkably none of them seem to identify themselves with the truther movement. Ever wonder why?


If Mr Demartini was alive today do you think he would agree with the statements he made in 1/2001? It is despicable that truthers take the words of a dead man to use fostering idiocy.

[whatchamacallit]

12. You don't know he wouldn't stick to his original statements

It is despicable that OCTers put words in a dead man's mouth to support government lies.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Lared didn't put any words in DeMartini's mouth, dude...

the fact that you would twist what Lared actually said to make it appear that way, belies your despicable tactics.

[whatchamacallit]

17. He insinuates the deceased would withdraw his original statement were he alive today

what do you call it then?

[LARED]

19. Please post where I implied such a thing.

[whatchamacallit]

20. What does this mean?

"If Mr Demartini was alive today do you think he would agree with the statements he made in 1/2001? "

[SDuderstadt]

22. It's a fucking question, dude...

did you notice that?

Aren't you and other truthers, in effect, putting words in DeMartini's mouth by pretending he could possibly have known the circumstances of 9/11?

[whatchamacallit]

23. I didn't do it, it wasn't my thread

Right robot, it's just a question in a vacuum. It has no context or implications.... Your robo-literal OS needs an upgrade.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Read your post # 5....

wtf are you babbling about now?

[whatchamacallit]

25. Use some of that superior critical thinking

and show me how my post establishes agreement with the OP. I was simply inspired by LARED's self-righteous reply to ask about something the OCT do in general.

[SDuderstadt]

26. You've got to be kidding....

read post # 5 again.

[LARED]

28. It means........

"If Mr Demartini was alive today do you think he would agree with the statements he made in 1/2001? "


What is so hard to understand about that. If you want to believe it means I think he would not agree with those words,feel free to believe whatever you want. That was not my intent. If I was trying to convey that message I would just come out and say it.

BTW I do believe Mr. Demartini would be appalled by truthers using his statements to support goofy nonsense. But I don't go around claiming his words have any meaning other than the plain ones he said. That is far different than posting his video all over the Internet and implying he supports something that is unsupportable, not applicable, unscientific, and in no way supportive of no-planes, controlled demo or any other truther nonsense.

[deconstruct911]

29. please show me where it says

no planes? Please show me where it says Frank Demartini endorsed this?

What I know according to NYT:

"Mr. De Martini, an architect, started working at the twin towers when he was hired to assess the damage from the 1993 bombing. He stayed on, becoming the construction manager, the man to see when you wanted to move a wall or rearrange the plumbing."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/01/national/portraits/POG-01DeMartini.html

When he was originally brought into the wtc his job was to asses fairly extesnive damage to the structure. I'm not aware of the details of his architecture career or damage assesmnet but it appears he is far more experienced with steel structures than you suggest.

Also the link I posted for this topic cites more statements from other individuals related to the wtc design.

[LARED]

31. So what did you mean by this?

As pointed out the planes on 9/11 had less than half of the fuel capacity of a FULLY LOADED boeing 707. I don't think the "fog" arguemnt or "less fuel" arguement has much relevance but draw your own conclusions.

It's pretty clesr to me you are using Mr. Demartini words to support goofy nonsense.

[deconstruct911]

34. I mean exactly what it says

I dont think it is relevant to his statements.

[LARED]

35. huh? nt

[LARED]

16. What dead man words are OCT'er using to support

government lies?

Please explain yourself.

[AZCat]

38. I don't think any of us have claimed to have a monopoly on expertise.

However, there do seem to be more technically trained people on the so-called "debunker" side than on the "truther" side.

[SDuderstadt]

2. The Towers DID withstand the crashes...

that's why they didn't collapse right away...it was the subsequent intense fires that weakened the steel that made the Towers collapse.

Making the same stupid argument over and over doesn't make your case stronger.

[deconstruct911]

3. When he said FULLY LOADED

He didnt mean passengers.

[SDuderstadt]

4. Dude...

you're not taking speed into account. Take a fucking physics class, then a critical thinking class.

You're a perfect example of why hardly anyone takes "truthers" seriously, especially "no-planers". Your "arguments" are stupid.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Why don't you take those classes

you obviously don't have a grasp of either.

[SDuderstadt]

10. I have, dude...

you, on the other hand, obviously have not.

[whatchamacallit]

13. Your teacher either sucked ass

or he passed you just to get you out of his class (which I'd understand).

[SDuderstadt]

15. Why are you talking about your personal relationship with...

my professor, dude?

I'll go head-to-head with you on the subject of critical thinking anytime. You can even have a head start. You'll need it.

[whatchamacallit]

18. We know you're smarter than us

because all you ever do is tell us. lol

[SDuderstadt]

21. My professor misses you...

dude.

P.S. Please show me where I have ever told you I am smarter than you. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth, dude.

[zappaman]

6. keep repeating it over and over

and it will magically become true.

[jberryhill]

27. And the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable

The towers did survive the impacts, however. But the statement is simply directed to strucural integrity. There was no way at that time to actually model such an event, nor to account for simultaneous failure of the fire suppression system.

And yet, the Titanic was sunk by an event which should not have caused it to sink.

[deconstruct911]

30. hmm

The titanic was designed to survive iceberg impacts?

Frank Demartini NEVER said the WTC was undestructable. He said a plane could not destroy the towers.

[LARED]

32. And a plane did not destroy the towers

the fire did.

[deconstruct911]

33. Is this some kind of game now?

No Al Qaeda did it.

No gravity did it.

No a plane did it.

No fire did it.

Take your pick.

[LARED]

36. Well it's not a game

but watching you flounder around trying to defend this OP is pretty amusing.

[jberryhill]

37. Yes, it was

And had it not been for other factors, the Titanic would have survived the impact in question.

You seem not to notice that (a) the towers did survive the aircraft impacts, and (b) Demartini did not design them.

[defendandprotect]

39. The WTC wasn't hit by an iceberg . . .

it was designed to withstand the impact of one OR MORE commercial jet airliners --

Nor was the Titantic designed to survive the slicing of an iceberg thru ... what was it ...

five of its chambers?

[zappaman]

40. "The WTC wasn't hit by an iceberg"

I have evidence that says otherwise...

[jberryhill]

41. Does Ice Cut Steel?

[zappaman]

42. well...

paper beats rock, so maybe ice does cut steel.