Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Dutch Wrote: Don't forget as well due to our own stupidity that the number of death would have been very small if these buildings were built the proper way; holding heavy floors with only 6 or so bolts of lousy quality caused the collapse not the plane caused damage. Thus 9/11 was totally caused by our own doing.
Scientific American, August 31, 2011: Twin Towers Forensic Investigation Helps Revise Building Codes, Despite Critics
This is an extract from the above article:
"It turns out that even a combination of high-speed collisions by two airliners and fires across multiple floors would not have destroyed the Twin Towers, according to NIST's final 2005 report on their collapse. The robustness and size of the structures helped them withstand the hits, and in the absence of damage, fires as intense as the ones the towers faced would likely not have led to collapse.
"Unfortunately, the impacts dislodged fireproofing insulation that coated steel in the floors and columns, leaving the metal vulnerable to weakening under fire. The ceiling sprinklers also did not work, because the water supplying them was cut off by the collisions."
-------------------------------------------------------------
The forensic investigation made recommendations on the fire insulation as well as other changes to building codes. But I would push back on your "proper way" to build buildings. Small planes have crashed into high rise buildings all over the world, but the chances of a major airline with all the sophisticated radar and telemetry hitting one of the Twin Towers was not considered a likely event in the 1970s when the towers were constructed. And in any case, the towers withstood those crashes. What apparently wasn't considered is the indirect impact of the crashes on the insulation and sprinklers.