Well the WTC towers WERE designed with the thought of an aircraft flying into them. I'm not supporting a theory here, but I remember an interview w/ the project manager for the construction of the towers that said that.
and they took the hit very well. i don't however recall the project manager saying they would withstand a "blast furnace" senario in addition to a plane hit.
seperate events; each weakening the structure.
Well the WTC towers WERE designed with the thought of an aircraft flying into them. I'm not supporting a theory here, but I remember an interview w/ the project manager for the construction of the towers that said that.
i don't however recall the project manager saying they would withstand a "blast furnace" senario in addition to a plane hit.
seperate events; each weakening the structure.
I would have thought that the designer would have taken into account that planes carry jet fuel when designing it to withstand plane strikes, or would have mentioned this in his comment?. I'm no expert and i certainly dont know what happened, highly suspect tho to anyone surely?
the towers did survive the plane strike. they didn't survive what happened next.
One would think, at the time, they would know a bit about the events that take place in the process of an airplane hitting a building.
Actually that's a question. Have any airplanes collided with buildings prior to the construction of the WTC towers?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
One would think, at the time, they would know a bit about the events that take place in the process of an airplane hitting a building.
Actually that's a question. Have any airplanes collided with buildings prior to the construction of the WTC towers?
welcome to the world of variables. NOW we know what could happen. but how do you draw out an event that was unthinkable until it happened? if the planes hit lower or higher; the result would have been different.
planes have collided with buildings but not one built like the wtc. none as tall as the wtc. an important factor for the chimney effect to cause the fire to be able to melt steel. not a building wrapped in mesh which held it together to allow this blast furnace senario.
The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.
They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.
The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.
The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.
They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.
The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.
Ok this is the first convincing argument i've heard from that side of the debate.
At least it was for a bit, because ok so you've got high levels of 02, cool, but that would make the fuel burn faster and apart from jet fuel what else was there to burn? serious question, once the fuels gone, no fire.
Steel and concrete wont burn, i dont think, computers, desks ect , not even worth considering gone in seconds.
This jet fuel, i think it was proved, would burn up in a matter of seconds? Not long enough surely?
The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.
They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.
The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.
Until someone gives evidence to the contrary, this is what I believe to be true. Well stated.
Ok this is the first convincing argument i've heard from that side of the debate.
At least it was for a bit, because ok so you've got high levels of 02, cool, but that would make the fuel burn faster and apart from jet fuel what else was there to burn? serious question, once the fuels gone, no fire.
Steel and concrete wont burn, i dont think, computers, desks ect , not even worth considering gone in seconds.
This jet fuel, i think it was proved, would burn up in a matter of seconds? Not long enough surely?
Look around your home or office. Everything you see will burn at some point. Think about all the carpet, desk, chairs, drywall, ceiling tiles, paper (can you imagine the amounts of paper in that building!!), computers, printers, clothing, even the metal pieces that your desk drawers ride on will burn eventually.(Which by the way, might explain the molten medal pile they found under the rumble. Have they ever said that was actually molten steel?) There had to be tons of combustables(sp?) in that building.
The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.
That is completely false. The building was built with an inside core support system.
Also when the building collasped, the fires had been out for a while.
Please watch the video if you're going to make these claims. It's less than 20mins.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I never said there WASN"T a central core. Your first picture link, where is says "This is a Graphic Showing the Actual Structure" shows the external walls are load bearing. The central core was not designed to hold the entire load.
The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.
They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.
The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.
you are correct. but the holes in the sides also drew O2 up the center stairwell causing the chimney or "bellows" effect.
i can doctor any video to show whatever you want but this is what happened.
The outside skin of the building held the bulk of the weight of the building. It was built with as little inside support on purpose to provide more open spaces inside. No building of its size was built that way before. The airplanes ripped massive holes in that support system. They had holes on both sides, letting the wind (which blows faster the higher you go) to blow straight thru. The more O2, the hotter the fire.
They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.
The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.
The Max takeoff weight for a fully loaded 707 is 333,649.6 lbs which is what the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits of.
A fully loaded 767-223er is 395,000 lbs.
It's not that much bigger of an airplane man....
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
That's 60,000 more pounds of force. Please show me where they were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from an airplane.
It was in the video.
Also the critera for the WTC construction was for a fully loaded max weight 707. Were the 767's at max weight?
Here are some weight configurations for the 767-200ER
767-200ER - Empty with PW4056s 76,566kg (168,800lb), with CF680C2B4s 76,476kg (168,600lb),
operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb), with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb).
Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb).
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
it seems like 60,000 extra pounds up against "however many pounds the trade centers weighed" is a pointless argument anyway. if it failed without the use of explosives, it seems like it was a flawed design regardless of the 60,000 extra lbs.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
it seems like 60,000 extra pounds up against "however many pounds the trade centers weighed" is a pointless argument anyway. if it failed without the use of explosives, it seems like it was a flawed design regardless of the 60,000 extra lbs.
Well from what I have provided, the planes can effectively have the same weight, or much lighter depending on the exact configuration (and payload), in the video it says the 767's were actually lighter. So how can something the tower is essentially designed for more or less completely obliterate it?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Well from what I have provided, the planes can effectively have the same weight, or much lighter depending on the exact configuration (and payload), in the video it says they were actually lighter. So how can something the tower is essentially designed for more or less completely obliterate it?
agree
the towers didn't fall b/c of jet fuel solely. a lot of the jet fuel came out in a big fireball, a lot of it probably burned up rapidly, and the objects that were soaked with jet fuel only burned hot enough to 'weaken' the steel. there were many other factors that contributed to the towers demise, so 60,000 lbs. of weight = how much more jet fuel probably wasn't 'that' significant of a change,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Well from what I have provided, the planes can effectively have the same weight, or much lighter depending on the exact configuration (and payload), in the video it says the 767's were actually lighter. So how can something the tower is essentially designed for more or less completely obliterate it?
The towers were designed to withstand a jet plane crash. Perhaps the design was wrong. An engineer can design something and based on his calculations that what he designed will not fail. But short of a real world test he cannot be 100% certain. On 9-11 we saw the design fail.
BTW this in no way means I don't hold the Bush admin responsible for allowing this to happen.
Do you think when they said the towers could survive a plane crashing into them, they had no idea there would be a fire involved at any point in the process?
When you make a statement like that as a designer it automatically implies that you know a fire will take place in the building... It's an explosion!
so....do you think a fully loaded 707 doesn't explode in a great big big fireball just like a 767?
:rolleyes:
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Do you think when they said the towers could survive a plane crashing into them, they had no idea there would be a fire involved at any point in the process?
When you make a statement like that as a designer it automatically implies that you know a fire will take place in the building... It's an explosion!
so....do you think a fully loaded 707 doesn't explode in a great big big fireball just like a 767?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Do you think when they said the towers could survive a plane crashing into them, they had no idea there would be a fire involved at any point in the process?
When you make a statement like that as a designer it automatically implies that you know a fire will take place in the building... It's an explosion!
so....do you think a fully loaded 707 doesn't explode in a great big big fireball just like a 767?
:rolleyes:
As someone mentioned earlier, no matter what designers feels, believe, even state, does not hold water to the actual event when it occurs. Furthermore, when the Twin Towers were built, I believe that they were designed to withstand a plane hitting the building. But I doubt back in the late '60's the designer and archtects would ever imagine hijackers slamming into the towers at full throttle. They probably assumed that if anyone hit the buildings in a plane it would be pilot error (like the Empire State Collision) and that pilot would be doing everything within his/her power to slow the plane down, not full speed ahead. Finally, even if they had the foresight to assume that someone would slam plane(s)!!! into the buildings at full speed and that the buildings would still stand, well, they were wrong. I wish we could ask the gentleman in the video his opinion now, but unfortunately, he was killed in 9/11. I have no problem posing questions about the ball being dropped time and again by Bush and his administration, but I feel the weight of the argument would hold alot more water if these conspiracy theorists drop some of their asinine thoughts (i.e. plane never crashed into Pentagon, Plane never crashed in PA, rather landed safely, 9/11 was an inside job,etc.) and focused on just posing the tough questions.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
Comments
and they took the hit very well. i don't however recall the project manager saying they would withstand a "blast furnace" senario in addition to a plane hit.
seperate events; each weakening the structure.
the towers did survive the plane strike. they didn't survive what happened next.
Multiple plane strikes.
I would have thought that the designer would have taken into account that planes carry jet fuel when designing it to withstand plane strikes, or would have mentioned this in his comment?. I'm no expert and i certainly dont know what happened, highly suspect tho to anyone surely?
One would think, at the time, they would know a bit about the events that take place in the process of an airplane hitting a building.
Actually that's a question. Have any airplanes collided with buildings prior to the construction of the WTC towers?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
welcome to the world of variables. NOW we know what could happen. but how do you draw out an event that was unthinkable until it happened? if the planes hit lower or higher; the result would have been different.
planes have collided with buildings but not one built like the wtc. none as tall as the wtc. an important factor for the chimney effect to cause the fire to be able to melt steel. not a building wrapped in mesh which held it together to allow this blast furnace senario.
They were built to withstand a 737 impact, which was the biggest plane at that time. They were hit by 767s, bigger and heavier, and carried more fuel.
The Empire State Building was built completely different, using basically steel boxes stacked on top of each other. Probably ten times stronger but less office space inside due to all the inner beams.
Ok this is the first convincing argument i've heard from that side of the debate.
At least it was for a bit, because ok so you've got high levels of 02, cool, but that would make the fuel burn faster and apart from jet fuel what else was there to burn? serious question, once the fuels gone, no fire.
Steel and concrete wont burn, i dont think, computers, desks ect , not even worth considering gone in seconds.
This jet fuel, i think it was proved, would burn up in a matter of seconds? Not long enough surely?
Until someone gives evidence to the contrary, this is what I believe to be true. Well stated.
Look around your home or office. Everything you see will burn at some point. Think about all the carpet, desk, chairs, drywall, ceiling tiles, paper (can you imagine the amounts of paper in that building!!), computers, printers, clothing, even the metal pieces that your desk drawers ride on will burn eventually.(Which by the way, might explain the molten medal pile they found under the rumble. Have they ever said that was actually molten steel?) There had to be tons of combustables(sp?) in that building.
That is completely false. The building was built with an inside core support system.
Also when the building collasped, the fires had been out for a while.
Please watch the video if you're going to make these claims. It's less than 20mins.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.911lies.org/images2/thermite_thermate_explosives_wtc_911.jpg
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I never said there WASN"T a central core. Your first picture link, where is says "This is a Graphic Showing the Actual Structure" shows the external walls are load bearing. The central core was not designed to hold the entire load.
you are correct. but the holes in the sides also drew O2 up the center stairwell causing the chimney or "bellows" effect.
i can doctor any video to show whatever you want but this is what happened.
does anyone know the date this picture was taken? i've heard a counter argument that these beams were cut afterwards.
~Ron Burgundy
The Max takeoff weight for a fully loaded 707 is 333,649.6 lbs which is what the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits of.
A fully loaded 767-223er is 395,000 lbs.
It's not that much bigger of an airplane man....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
That's 60,000 more pounds of force. Please show me where they were designed to take MULTIPLE hits from an airplane.
It was in the video.
Also the critera for the WTC construction was for a fully loaded max weight 707. Were the 767's at max weight?
Here are some weight configurations for the 767-200ER
767-200ER - Empty with PW4056s 76,566kg (168,800lb), with CF680C2B4s 76,476kg (168,600lb),
operating empty with PW4056s 84,415kg (186,100lb), with CF680C2B4Fs 84,370kg (186,000lb).
Max takeoff with PW4056s or CF680C2B4Fs 175,540kg (387,000lb).
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
~Ron Burgundy
Well from what I have provided, the planes can effectively have the same weight, or much lighter depending on the exact configuration (and payload), in the video it says the 767's were actually lighter. So how can something the tower is essentially designed for more or less completely obliterate it?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
agree
the towers didn't fall b/c of jet fuel solely. a lot of the jet fuel came out in a big fireball, a lot of it probably burned up rapidly, and the objects that were soaked with jet fuel only burned hot enough to 'weaken' the steel. there were many other factors that contributed to the towers demise, so 60,000 lbs. of weight = how much more jet fuel probably wasn't 'that' significant of a change,...
~Ron Burgundy
It didn't, it survived the impact.
BTW this in no way means I don't hold the Bush admin responsible for allowing this to happen.
All these people keep bringing up the fact that it's impossible for the buildings to have collapsed the way they did...
Well, do some research. They were designed to do exactly what they did.
Do you think when they said the towers could survive a plane crashing into them, they had no idea there would be a fire involved at any point in the process?
When you make a statement like that as a designer it automatically implies that you know a fire will take place in the building... It's an explosion!
so....do you think a fully loaded 707 doesn't explode in a great big big fireball just like a 767?
:rolleyes:
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I don't know, your video doesn't say.
what would be your guess?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
As someone mentioned earlier, no matter what designers feels, believe, even state, does not hold water to the actual event when it occurs. Furthermore, when the Twin Towers were built, I believe that they were designed to withstand a plane hitting the building. But I doubt back in the late '60's the designer and archtects would ever imagine hijackers slamming into the towers at full throttle. They probably assumed that if anyone hit the buildings in a plane it would be pilot error (like the Empire State Collision) and that pilot would be doing everything within his/her power to slow the plane down, not full speed ahead. Finally, even if they had the foresight to assume that someone would slam plane(s)!!! into the buildings at full speed and that the buildings would still stand, well, they were wrong. I wish we could ask the gentleman in the video his opinion now, but unfortunately, he was killed in 9/11. I have no problem posing questions about the ball being dropped time and again by Bush and his administration, but I feel the weight of the argument would hold alot more water if these conspiracy theorists drop some of their asinine thoughts (i.e. plane never crashed into Pentagon, Plane never crashed in PA, rather landed safely, 9/11 was an inside job,etc.) and focused on just posing the tough questions.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"