Any 'Plan B' for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan?

In a sign that President Obama is facing growing skepticism within his own party on Afghanistan, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan should brief Congress on his recommendations for revising U.S military strategy.

[The laughing liberal]

Plan B is a word Obama loves?- Bailout!-

[Mike]

Plan B? Sure: support and stabilize the Afghan National government and completely block off the southern Pashtun region occasionally bombing them. We need a place to test our weapons, after all.

[Bill]

Plan A, B and C MUST involve prosecuting the architects of the Afghan invasion for war crimes, ending aggression immediately and withdrawing our troops, reparations to victims of U.S. illegal aggression and a FULL, HONEST investigation into the attack of September 11, an attack which evidently was a false flag operation (an "inside job").

If Obama and the current military leadership persist in their aggression, then they should be prosecuted for war crimes. The U.S. missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan were built on lies, and the architects and official promulgators of those lies must be held accountable.

[Rico]

Bill wrote:

Plan A, B and C MUST involve prosecuting the architects of the Afghan invasion for war crimes, ending aggression immediately and withdrawing our troops, reparations to victims of U.S. illegal aggression and a FULL, HONEST investigation into the attack of September 11, an attack which evidently was a false flag operation (an "inside job").
If Obama and the current military leadership persist in their aggression, then they should be prosecuted for war crimes. The U.S. missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan were built on lies, and the architects and official promulgators of those lies must be held accountable.

Have you seen this: http://rt.tv/top_news/2009-09-10/911-attack-r...

[progressive]

Bill wrote:

Plan A, B and C MUST involve prosecuting the architects of the Afghan invasion for war crimes, ending aggression immediately and withdrawing our troops, reparations to victims of U.S. illegal aggression and a FULL, HONEST investigation into the attack of September 11, an attack which evidently was a false flag operation (an "inside job").
If Obama and the current military leadership persist in their aggression, then they should be prosecuted for war crimes. The U.S. missions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan were built on lies, and the architects and official promulgators of those lies must be held accountable.

I would not object to a full and honest investigation into the 911 attack - and that would require not assuming that it is an inside job. Or it were an inside job, do you really think that Cheney and his co-conspirators (I assume you mean a Bush Admin. job, and do you really think Bush could have done it? if not Cheney, who - please reply!) would have left information lying around to prove it was an inside job - anything that a Demcoratic Congress or a new Democratic President or Attorney General or CIA director could find? I doubt it. I suspect that the only thing that might be a possible lead would be a mere matter of raising some doubts and questions, such as some reports of physical evidence such as residues of certain chemicals in the wreckage of buildings - Building 7, for example, that cast doubt on the official version - in the case of Building 7, that the fires somehow destablized the building, or whatever the explanation was. I paid some attention to it, but not much. It might also be interesting to know, just as a matter of some interest, what offices were in that building, and what information was stored there. Not for the purpose of supporting some specific conspiracy theory - but just to raise some specific questions. I am all for the questions - not so much for any suggested answers, whether they be official or anti-official conspiracy theories. But to assume that Obama would know now, about hidden secrets of teh past Administration, is not likely. I think Cheney would have learned the lessons of Watergate, and destroyed any evidence, even assuming he was involved in such a plot. And again, if not Cheney, who? It does remind me of teh various suspicious about the events in l963, in Dallas, and all those conspiracy theories. Who could believe that a highly-arranged, secretly held conspiracy would be so careless as to leave loose ends? I think we need to re-evaluate the actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, from now on, but not based on assuming an inside job on 911. But on the basis of the mobility of terrorist groups, which could leave the U. S. troops bogged down in the mountains near Pakistan, and in trouble if they went into Pakistan, and the drones, which would kill civilians and offend more Pakistanis - while the terrorists go off to Sudan, Somalia, or somewhere else, and train and plan in a new location,

[progressive]

Or IF - highly suppositicious! What is it that you allege, and what evidence do you point to? What about the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, and the phone calls from people with cell phones on that plane? What schenario are you alleging? Do you think no one ever landed on the moon, either? If you think the media faked 911 - why would it?- and then you might as well allege the moon landing did not happen either. did it , do you think?

[progressive]

Rico wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you seen this: http://rt.tv/top_news/2009-09-10/911-attack-r...

That was interesting. However, where was this published, and on what date? Where is the documentations for various claims in the article? I am simply unwilling to believe any version of what happened yet. and I do think if someone wants to allege the facts alleged in that article, they should have some theory of who would do this, and why? How the sulfur - or whtevr - was places there in the first place, and who arranged the inside job. and what the connections would be with the airplanes and their pilots. also some questions arise about the Pentagon and teh Pa flight. Has someone put together a comprehensive theory and scenario - including wh would have ordered it. Does someone allege Bush ordered it? I find that silly. Does anyone think Cheney ordered it - and if so, through whom, and how, and why? Not so unthinkable - but still a pretty big drama to justify enriching Haliburton somehow, or justifying waterboarding, or even to get more power for the President, when he was not cerain of being able to manipulate the President forever - or for 8 years, as he seems to hbe complaining that he couldn't do, toward the end of the second term. If not them, who - Dion Rumsfeld? CIA? Is Angleton or whatever his name is still around - and what reason wouldCOA have? Your theory is a set of good questions. But when you use the term "inside job" you go much further than questions, and imply things - without being very precise. Maybe you do not personaly, but the use of that term does. You must realize that you make people curious. And it is easier to debunk the theory if there is not some documentation - for instance, even of the resistance of the White House to the 911 investigation in the first place, and some elements of Administration non-cooperation with it. We hear suggestions about this, but not the documentation that it actually happened. Are peple alleging that Bush knew in advance? That Cheney knew? If they knew, and did not stop it, would that not be same as accusing them of guilt in doing it, or having it done - some sort of complicity and toleration of the evil? they could presumably have stopped it, even if it were a rogue cIA operation or somethign, had they known about it in advance. By asking us to buy the qusestions and implications in the article, you are sort of asking us to buy "a pig in a poke" is the old expression. That means that one can see the poke, but the pig is hidden inside it, and we do not see what we are really being asked to buy. is there a hidden agenda on the part of the conspiracy theorists who think it was an inside job - a group or individual they want to blame, a motive they want to accuse them of having, a scenario of how the event traces back to the co-conspirators - without anyone tipping anyone off, beforehand. If anyone believes in this sort of inside job theory, can you ex0plain more of what the complete theory is? It is fine if you say you don't know. But if you have a hidden theory, and don't reveal it, then we need to look to your motives, too!

[progressive]

To Bill i nelgin Texas - have I seen that town name before on topix? or your comments before? not sure. I actually do think some lies were told, and would like to see them exposed. but there is a stretch between some lies and an entire conspiracy. I think there is going to be too much pressure brought to bear to stop an investigation, and people will go on disbelieving, or believing, the official story - or some alternate. I am going to go on disbelieving both, and wondering, but not hoping to ever know the truth. I think my attitude is the most realistic, and the most truth ful in a way. We have been told stuff we can't know whether is true or not, and won't be allowed to find out. Do you dispute that my view is the most likely and sensible? Even if you don't like it. don't you thnk there have been successful cover-ups of this or that before? by the U. S. Government, foreign governments, individuals, groups of co-conspirators?

[Rico]

progressive wrote:

<quoted text> That was interesting. However, where was this published, and on what date? Where is the documentations for various claims in the article? I am simply unwilling to believe any version of what happened yet. and I do think if someone wants to allege the facts alleged in that article, they should have some theory of who would do this, and why? How the sulfur - or whtevr - was places there in the first place, and who arranged the inside job. and what the connections would be with the airplanes and their pilots. also some questions arise about the Pentagon and teh Pa flight. Has someone put together a comprehensive theory and scenario - including wh would have ordered it. Does someone allege Bush ordered it? I find that silly. Does anyone think Cheney ordered it - and if so, through whom, and how, and why? Not so unthinkable - but still a pretty big drama to justify enriching Haliburton somehow, or justifying waterboarding, or even to get more power for the President, when he was not cerain of being able to manipulate the President forever - or for 8 years, as he seems to hbe complaining that he couldn't do, toward the end of the second term. If not them, who - Dion Rumsfeld? CIA? Is Angleton or whatever his name is still around - and what reason wouldCOA have? Your theory is a set of good questions. But when you use the term "inside job" you go much further than questions, and imply things - without being very precise. Maybe you do not personaly, but the use of that term does. You must realize that you make people curious. And it is easier to debunk the theory if there is not some documentation - for instance, even of the resistance of the White House to the 911 investigation in the first place, and some elements of Administration non-cooperation with it. We hear suggestions about this, but not the documentation that it actually happened. Are peple alleging that Bush knew in advance? That Cheney knew? If they knew, and did not stop it, would that not be same as accusing them of guilt in doing it, or having it done - some sort of complicity and toleration of the evil? they could presumably have stopped it, even if it were a rogue cIA operation or somethign, had they known about it in advance. By asking us to buy the qusestions and implications in the article, you are sort of asking us to buy "a pig in a poke" is the old expression. That means that one can see the poke, but the pig is hidden inside it, and we do not see what we are really being asked to buy. is there a hidden agenda on the part of the conspiracy theorists who think it was an inside job - a group or individual they want to blame, a motive they want to accuse them of having, a scenario of how the event traces back to the co-conspirators - without anyone tipping anyone off, beforehand. If anyone believes in this sort of inside job theory, can you ex0plain more of what the complete theory is? It is fine if you say you don't know. But if you have a hidden theory, and don't reveal it, then we need to look to your motives, too!

I found this on RIA NOVOSTE, it's a Russian news outlet...

[MUQ]

The more unbiased and unprejudiced studies are conducted on the events of 9/11 incidents and collapse of 3 Towers in WTC....the more it becomes clear that it was not such a simple job as it was shown to the public.

The WTC Towers were DESIGNED to take the hit by a fully loaded Jet hitting it at almost full speed!!

The main issue was the horrendous fire that Jet Fuel will cause to the building and people working there.

The Tower should have been standing there...with some floors damaged and some floors collapsed or partially collapsed.

The "Free fall" as we saw on TV Screens.... took every one by surprise. It was not jet fuel fire... It was like a controlled implosion we see when buildings are braught down regualrly by simultaneously weakening all memebers of the pillars in a controlled manner.

That is what we saw on TV screens... there is a growing concern amongst Engineers, Structural Engineers that some thing is missing in the official explaination of the event.

There are many sites on Internet "9-11 truth seekers" that provide these details.

But the climate is craeted in US and Europe that any one questioning official policy is immidiately dubbed as "Taliban Sympathiser" 'Anti US" "Anti national" 'Anti Semitic" or a "Nutter".

This discourages many honest people to know or enquire about the truth of 9/11 events.

It was a deep rooted conspiracy.... the people were powerful enough to mould the political and military people to their views.

The official line was taken fairly quickly, the attack on Afghanistan started without full investigations being complete... so that any "Finding" will have to support the official policy....because the "execution of Justice" has already been done!!

Any other theory would be 'Against US National Interest" to say the least.

I do not know for how long the world concience would tolerate this hiding the true events of 9/11 and find the true people responsible for 9/11 attacks.

From all available data it is only a myth that "19 Suicide Hijackers did that without any ground support or ground assistance"

[westley]

Mike wrote:

Plan B? Sure: support and stabilize the Afghan National government and completely block off the southern Pashtun region occasionally bombing them. We need a place to test our weapons, after all.

You americans really have lost the plot. No where will you find a more crazy kill kill kill attitude than in the good old U.S of A !! Please can you all stay at home!

[Bill]

progressive wrote:

To Bill ...
I actually do think some lies were told, and would like to see them exposed. but there is a stretch between some lies and an entire conspiracy. I think there is going to be too much pressure brought to bear to stop an investigation, and people will go on disbelieving, or believing, the official story - or some alternate. I am going to go on disbelieving both, and wondering, but not hoping to ever know the truth. I think my attitude is the most realistic, and the most truth ful in a way. We have been told stuff we can't know whether is true or not, and won't be allowed to find out....

We have CONCLUSIVE proof that the World Trade Center was destroyed with prepositioned demolition tech:
- All of the videos show buildings that were disintegrating too rapidly and too energetically to be gravity-driven collapses as the government claims and as would result from structural failure due to fire and damage.
- multiple researchers, including scientists with the U.S.Geological Survey and an independent team assessing environmental impact from the attack on the neighboring Deutche Bank building, have found evidence of extremely high temperatures which cannot be explained by the official hypothesis but which are completely consistent with thermitic (pyrotechnic) reaction. Witness accounts of pools of molten metal are also consistent with thermitic arson and NOT consistent with the failure from fire and damage explanation.
- Unreacted nanothermitic material HAS BEEN FOUND IN ABUNDANCE (!!) in the World Trade Center dust. This is a very sophisticated pyrotechnic material, developed within the last decade in U.S. mil labs - which cannot be mistaken for something else and, depending on the particular variant, which can have explosive properties exceeding conventional TNT and HMX. There is no reason for this material to appear in every sample of WTC dust examined other than that it was used in the pre-planned demolition of the WTC buildings.
- The official "investigation" into the demise of the WTC is an obvious fraud: a great deal of evidence was destroyed before it could be examined, other physical evidence (i.e. the dust) was ignored, the scope of the investigation was artificially limited to exclude the disintegration phase for the towers, which clearly required demolition to conform with fundamental laws of physics), etc.

Since we know CONCLUSIVELY that the World Trade Center was destroyed with prepositioned demolition tech, and we know that access to these buildings is restricted (tenants of WTC-7 included the CIA, the SEC, the Secret Service, the DoD, etc.), and we know that the official "investigation" was performed by federal agencies (FBI, NIST, FEMA), we therefore know that government officials were involved in a cover-up of a crime which required fore-knowledge of the attack and extensive insider access. In fact, we should recognize that the majority of the casualties on 9/11 resulted from the destruction of the WTC towers, so this was essentially the main component of the attack. This component MUST have been planned, executed, and covered-up by highly placed individuals within our government. There is no alternative explanation.

We need a new, honest investigation to find out WHO was involved and their precise roles, but the demolition of the WTC is clearly incompatible with an "al Qaeda" attack. We know some of the perpetrators already, people who lead the various official investigations and people who were instrumental in promoting the cover-up story (i.e. the Bush administration). They should be prosecuted.

The article that Rico posted describes other crucial problems with the official fiction, including NORAD's (non)response, the Pentagon site, etc.

[Patriot from Ohio]

Plan B is pretty simple.

Get the **** out of the Middle East.

All we are doing is stirring up the pot of war and terror.

Ya know the funny thing about our government?

When ever they go to 'fix' a problem, they never really fix the problem. The root of the cause has not been taken care of. No matter how many goddamn terrorists you kill, more will come. They come from different places than Afghanistan. Heck, the September 11th terrorists weren't even from Afghanistan! The reason why we have this whole terrorist threat is because for decades the United States has been practicing a policy of supporting cruel dictators and intervening in far too many countries, ruining many peoples lives, doing many things they could not get away with in America, and this has caused a rise in terrorism. How do we fix the problem? Stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, like we did back in the 70s in AFghanistan, supporting the land lords and fundamentalists against the perfectly legit PDP government, and only attack another nation if it is ACTUALLY posing a threat to America.

[MUQ]

If you ask the question in REVERSE, may be you will easily know the answer who did it.

Ask honestly...which country or which group derived maximum benefits from these 9/11 attacks?

The country or group which derives the maximim benefit and becomes the prime suspect as having the most interested party in the attack.

But the moment we ask this question, the law comes heavily on us in the form of "Anti Semitism" etc.

Why one group of US population should have this exclusive advantage which no other groups has?

If you just count Jews, Zionists and Jewish supporters in any US adminstration, the whole plot will look like a child's play.

But we should never ask this question, never , ever, if such hign numbers of Arabs or Muslims were represented in any US adminstartion, the whole media will be up in arms.

Dont we see protests against muslims in Europe and other parts of the world, when their numbers becaomes slightly large?

This is the whole truth behind this 9/11 tpye of attacks,,, to create a permanent wedge between US and Muslim World.

[Patriot from Ohio]

MUQ, either you are twisting the facts, or the people you get your information from are twisting the facts. Most of what you say is either completely false, or only half true.

When you say the word DESIGNED, you act as though specific steps were taken in to protect the buildings from the crash of a large jet and the affects of the jet fuel. But it wasn't. Though a Boeing 707 going much slower by the way was taken into account, they did not DESIGN the buildings to be able to withstand the impacts. If a jet had only hit the building, and there had been no flames, the building would have stood, though it would have had to be demolished later. The building did sway, throwing people off their feet, when the plane hit, but it withstood the impacts. But the combined effects of the major structural damage, loss of fireproofing on key components, and heavy fire is what ultimately brought those towers down. NOT explosives.

The collapse of the towers was NOTHING like a controlled demolition, obviously you don't know what a controlled demo is like, otherwise you wouldn't claim this, do you even understand how they set up and how controlled demolitions work? no of course not. The towers did not collapse from any explosive devices, thats what the experts have concluded from the available evidence, and there really is no conspiracy.

Many of those truther sites and videos you are watching and using are known for their flat-out lies, twisting of the facts, and mis-understandings, such as that of ground effect, which truther sites clearly twist, not at all understanding what ground effect really is.

[Bill]

Patriot from Ohio wrote:

...

When you say the word DESIGNED, you act as though specific steps were taken in to protect the buildings from the crash of a large jet and the affects of the jet fuel. But it wasn't. Though a Boeing 707 going much slower by the way was taken into account, they did not DESIGN the buildings to be able to withstand the impacts. If a jet had only hit the building, and there had been no flames, the building would have stood, though it would have had to be demolished later....

John Skilling was the lead structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.

Skilling: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,... The building structure would still be there."
see http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi...

----------

A white paper published in 1964 stated:
"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

from "City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company," LLC, 2003, page 131

----------

Architect and World Trade Center Construction Manager Frank DeMartini stated in a January 2001 video interview:

"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..."
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Patriot from Ohio wrote:

The building did sway, throwing people off their feet, when the plane hit, but it withstood the impacts. But the combined effects of the major structural damage, loss of fireproofing on key components, and heavy fire is what ultimately brought those towers down. NOT explosives.
The collapse of the towers was NOTHING like a controlled demolition, obviously you don't know what a controlled demo is like, otherwise you wouldn't claim this, do you even understand how they set up and how controlled demolitions work? no of course not. The towers did not collapse from any explosive devices, thats what the experts have concluded from the available evidence, and there really is no conspiracy.
Many of those truther sites and videos you are watching and using are known for their flat-out lies, twisting of the facts, and mis-understandings, such as that of ground effect, which truther sites clearly twist, not at all understanding what ground effect really is.

The loss of fireproofing on key structural components is an unsupported hypothetical which nevertheless fails to explain the very rapid and explosive demise of the lower floors that were purportedly undamaged from plane impact or fires.

The presence of sophisticated, highly engineered pyrotechnic material and residues of pyrotechnics has been found by multiple teams of investigators and corroborates what is clear from an analysis of the physics in the videos: that there were additional "energy inputs" (explosives) undermining the structural integrity of the towers below the impact zone, resulting in a very fast demolition, where a great deal of the towers' masses were finely fragmented and ejected out.

What is motivating you to lie?

[Rico]

progressive wrote:

Or IF - highly suppositicious! What is it that you allege, and what evidence do you point to? What about the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, and the phone calls from people with cell phones on that plane? What schenario are you alleging? Do you think no one ever landed on the moon, either? If you think the media faked 911 - why would it?- and then you might as well allege the moon landing did not happen either. did it , do you think?

At least one astronaut believes he never stepped foot on the moon...

LEBANON, OHIO—Apollo 11 mission commander and famed astronaut Neil Armstrong shocked reporters at a press conference Monday, announcing he had been convinced that his historic first step on the moon was part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the United States government.
According to Armstrong, he was forced to reconsider every single detail of the monumental journey after watching a few persuasive YouTube videos, and reading several blog posts on conspiracy theorist Ralph Coleman's website, OmissionControl.org .
"It only took a few hastily written paragraphs published by this passionate denier of mankind's so-called 'greatest technological achievement' for me to realize I had been living a lie, " said a visibly emotional Armstrong, addressing reporters at his home. "It has become painfully clear to me that on July 20, 1969, the Lunar Module under the control of my crew did not in fact travel 250,000 miles over eight days, touch down on the moon, and perform various experiments, ushering in a new era for humanity. Instead, the entire thing was filmed on a soundstage, most likely in New Mexico."
"This is the only logical interpretation of the numerous inconsistencies in the grainy, 40-year-old footage," Armstrong added.

[Patriot from Ohio]

Really Bill, I don't see you will ever change your mind so its not a waste of time. The building was not designed specifically to withstand the impact of a jet and the ensuing fires. Do you have some sort of plans that were used during the construction that show this? Of course not, NIST I think found some few sections regarding a jet, the calculations if I am correct at the time did not factor in the jet fuel, LOSS OF FIREPROOFING, and flames.

The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/...

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks...

So this bullshit about the plane going full speed aint true. They were expecting the plane to be going slow, lost in the fog.... so there is a significant difference between the expected impact and the one that ocurred on 9/11.

The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03...

[Patriot from Ohio]

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed.''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.
http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%...

So the above link tells us that the buildings weren't really DESIGNED to even withstand the force of an impact. Instead, Robertson did some calculations on the existing design to see what effects an impact would have.

Anyways, we could bicker about whether or not it was really designed for that kind of impact at that speed, but we do know that the loss of fireproofing and ensuing fires sparked by a massive amount of jet fuel was not included in their calculations:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks...

Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.

"Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03...

[Patriot from Ohio]

So apparently you are wrong , Bill.

Anyways, the buildings did do an excellent job resisting the impacts of the plane, as they withstood the crashes, as they should have...

But it was the combination of structural damage and the loss of fireproofing along with the fires that ultimately were the doom of the towers. In fact, we have a good amount of eyewitness accounts that tell us of the groaning and swaying building mostly right after the impact and also near the end of the buildings.