That was an accident that happened in the fog. That's why a plane impact was accounted for in the design of the WTC, because it had already happened once. They were anticipating an accident. Not a kamikaze attack of both towers in one day.
The architect of the WTC used to boast that he designed the towers to take the impact of a 707.
He didn't "boast", it was the truth, nd it was talked about before the towers were ever built because they would be so much higher than everything around them. The 707 was the biggest plane around at the time the building was designed. They weren't anticipating a much bigger plane with a much larger fuel capacity. So no, they didn't account for that. Should they have gone back and rebuilt the building to new specs?
They also designed it to withstand hurricane winds much higher than have ever been recorded here, but that doesn't mean it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a storm of unprecedented power to take them down. Would that be the fault of the designers? Can we build anything, if we have to plan for everything--not just the likely but the extremely unlikely?
If you couldn't imagine it, then maybe it's a good thing we don't hire you to develop building emergency evacuation procedures. The sad thing, of course, is that the people we did hire for the WTC proved to be equally unimaginative.
Screw yourself, pompous ass. You didn't imagine it either. And I don't believe for one minute that if YOU were in that situation, knowing that a plane had just slammed into the other tower, you would have thought it was anything other than a horrible accident until the other plane hit the building you were in.
It's very easy to "imagine" that particular scenario now, after it was so thoroughly demonstrated. But if you're claiming you thought of it before, you are lying.
B.) The point about the doors being locked would apply just as well if it HAD been an accidental crash into only ONE of the buildings. Having those doors locked was inexcusable. Negligent homicide, in fact.
The 707 and 767 are almost identical in size and fuel capacity. Try doing a google search on 707's and 767's and look at the what the wbesites tell you about size, weight, payload, fuel capacity, etc. I think you are getting confused over the 747, which is much larger. But back when the buildings we're being designed, 747's (and C5-a's) didn't exist.