The bottom line is that we were made to believe a 707 is not comparable to a 767 which is what hit the towers. I'm saying in reality the building was totally designed to handle this and should have. It's simple to think about.
They were over engineered and designed for exactly what hit them. Actually more than what hit them.
So address that logic and mindset first before you start digesting all the gov't reports which are essentially flawed and grossly inadequate.
So what if they were designed to withstand the impact. Read what I posted again, it was the combination of the collision and the fire.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
So what if they were designed to withstand the impact. Read what I posted again, it was the combination of the collision and the fire.
They were designed to withstand and survive the entire event not just the impact.
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.
Ok, all of you conspiracy people are correct and all the respected engineers and college professors that offer logical explinations as to why they collapsed are wrong. Just keep telling yourselves that. The US media and the US government were able to put together the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind that will never be able to be duplicated.
Just fucking ridiculous.
I'm not a conspiracy nut... but some of this makes sense.
My father flew jets in the Navy... right after 9-11 he told me he was suspicious of the story that 3-4 inexperienced pilots could maneuver these passenger planes with such precision. I don't think he's a conspiracy nut... he was just pointing out that the guys that did this had more than a few hours of flight training under their belts. The planes were already several hundred miles out of New York before they were Hi-Jacked. The Hi-jackers would have had to reset their bearings from about 30000 feet and about 400-500 miles from the WTC. An experienced pilot that had flown the route before would be familiar with the landmarks but woud still need help with the navigation (air traffic control). To an inexperienced pilot, circling back and finding their target (NYC) would be a longshot. Especially for 2 inexperienced pilots that didn't communicate with anyone on the ground.
My dad told me that back in the 70's (before computers did everything) pilots had to rely almost 70% on radio contact. Many passenger jets that lost radio contact flew blind and relied on the pilot's experience. This happened once when a pilot landed in Cleveland and thought he was landing in Detroit.
If my dad questions this logic, then I'm not so sure I wouldn't question some of the points made here.
I'm not sure the best way is to actually believe everything you are told, conspiracy nuts or not. One can only look at history to see even larger conspiracies that occured right under everyone's nose.
Ok, all of you conspiracy people are correct and all the respected engineers and college professors that offer logical explinations as to why they collapsed are wrong. Just keep telling yourselves that. The US media and the US government were able to put together the greatest conspiracy in the history of mankind that will never be able to be duplicated.
Just fucking ridiculous.
For every respected engineer and college professor that has gone out of his way to twist the facts to make them fit is an engineer and college professor who see the collapse for what it was and instead of trying to think of a incredibly illaborate reason (for the little people who will believe anything) for why they collapsed, just tell it like they see it.
So what makes one more right than the other? Their all respected people.
I personally am going with, it looked like a demolition. I don't need some idiot payed by the goverment who spent months and months twisting the facts to choose that decision for me.
And you call logical twisting facts, you really must believe 2+2=5.
And whats the media got to do with it, they just put out what thier told, you don't really think you have a free and independent press over there do you.
Throughout history there have been many attacks carried out by goverments and blamed on other people just to get thier countries people to fall into line, look it up you'll be surprised. And my personal view is if goverments have done it before they sure as hell would do it again.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
he was on the history channel once talking about what they designed the tower to withstand, i remember a point being that "withstand" meant the impact of an aircraft wouldn't knock it over.
They were designed to withstand and survive the entire event not just the impact.
"It was a fully laden aircraft, it was piloted by a suicidal pilot bent on converting this aircraft into a ballistic missile," he said. "That was not a design consideration."
From the article link on this page. I keep hearing all of the conspiracy theorists (especially you) citing how we shouldn't believe what the experts as well as the government tells us. But where is your data originating from? And please do not direct me to truth.org or some other CS site. Do you have viable proof or at least a group of respected opinions that back your claim that the Twin Towers should have withstood the attack without issue? Key word being viable. I don't want to watch some two hour movie narrated by some grade schooler telling me that a plane didn't crash in Pennsylvania.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
For every respected engineer and college professor that has gone out of his way to twist the facts to make them fit is an engineer and college professor who see the collapse for what it was and instead of trying to think of a incredibly illaborate reason (for the little people who will believe anything) for why they collapsed, just tell it like they see it.
So what makes one more right than the other? Their all respected people.
I personally am going with, it looked like a demolition. I don't need some idiot payed by the goverment who spent months and months twisting the facts to choose that decision for me.
And you call logical twisting facts, you really must believe 2+2=5.
And whats the media got to do with it, they just put out what thier told, you don't really think you have a free and independent press over there do you.
Throughout history there have been many attacks carried out by goverments and blamed on other people just to get thier countries people to fall into line, look it up you'll be surprised. And my personal view is if goverments have done it before they sure as hell would do it again.
Ok, I will keep believing 2+2=5 and you keep believing what a couple of nut jobs are saying on the internet.
Also, of course it looked like implosion...the fucking building was collapsing. That is what happens in an implosion. What did you expect to happen? There be another huge explosion and the building explodes outward. And you probably are one of these people that think the building fell within its own footrprint. Give me a break. Take a look at ground zero and pictures of it afterwards. Also, to give our government and people of the media which would have had to be involved too credit for such a large cover up is crazy.
But I am wasting my breath. The government blew up the WTC's, we didn't land on the moon and I am going to guess that explosives were on the USS Arizona during Pearl Harbor because there is no way a ship could sink that fast.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Ok, I will keep believing 2+2=5 and you keep believing what a couple of nut jobs are saying on the internet.
Also, of course it looked like implosion...the fucking building was collapsing. That is what happens in an implosion. What did you expect to happen? There be another huge explosion and the building explodes outward. And you probably are one of these people that think the building fell within its own footrprint. Give me a break. Take a look at ground zero and pictures of it afterwards. Also, to give our government and people of the media which would have had to be involved too credit for such a large cover up is crazy.
But I am wasting my breath. The government blew up the WTC's, we didn't land on the moon and I am going to guess that explosives were on the USS Arizona during Pearl Harbor because there is no way a ship could sink that fast.
Ok i ignored it the first time but you passed up the opportunity to not look foolish. You take a look at "Grayound Zearo" and without thinking so literally tell me how big the ruined area is, this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed, which is logical as it was so much closer than any other building. Truth be told if you were to have drawn a chalk line around the base of the towers before it collapsed it would not have all laid to rest in this outline, is this where you're confusion lies?
But i am wasting my breath, theres no precedent for governments to misuse they're powers, the US government has never acted in an underhand and shady way and acts only for the good of the people US and the world at large, and it is currently in the process of expending billions of dollars and thousands of US lives in a noble attempt to free the people of the middle-east from oppression.
Ok i ignored it the first time but you passed up the opportunity to not look foolish. You take a look at "Grayound Zearo" and without thinking so literally tell me how big the ruined area is, this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed, which is logical as it was so much closer than any other building. Truth be told if you were to have drawn a chalk line around the base of the towers before it collapsed it would not have all laid to rest in this outline, is this where you're confusion lies?
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Thank you dude, so we're clear it fell in its own footprint(ish for u Waves).
Now can we deal with the speed at which it did this?
Because this quote states that "given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity"
So this is the important issue, as had there not been that speed of fall, there would have been a lateral fall as it held up on the floors below and toppled.
hence why people say it is like a demolition.
Thank you dude, so we're clear it fell in its own footprint(ish for u Waves).
Now can we deal with the speed at which it did this?
Because this quote states that "given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity"
So this is the important issue, as had there not been that speed of fall, there would have been a lateral fall as it held up on the floors below and toppled.
hence why people say it is like a demolition.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.
from the same source as above
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
he was on the history channel once talking about what they designed the tower to withstand, i remember a point being that "withstand" meant the impact of an aircraft wouldn't knock it over.
All buildings are designed with fire in mind. Mainly because they all catch fire at some point in their lives. Again I believe this is more media spin.
It's like saying they had no idea (at all) that plane crashes actually cause fire, or jet fuel is not flammable prior to to 1972-73.
Yeahh ok...
More media bullshit designed to evade the obvious...
Take a big bite...mmmm
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 of the main points of this thread was that the video showed to picture with the firemen and the beams of steel with precision cuts. no one has tried to debate this. to me, nothing could seem more obvious. what else could have caused such a clear cut? why does it look like there is previously melted steel dripping down the cuts?
for those that would argue this was during clean up,... are firemen the ones who were cutting the beams? why didn't they cut the beams to the ground?
to me, this is the best evidence i've seen of a 'demolition'.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.
from the same source as above
If it were the impact of the jet, the collapses would have occured almost instanteously. If it were the fuel burning alone, it could not have happened. That's an impossibility.
Interesting how Leslie Robertson mentions the fact that a 707 carries over 23,000 gallons of fuel, and a 767 carries 23,980 gallons. Also interesting to note the WTC planes had less than full tanks of fuel when they hit the towers. hmm...
"A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.
"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Leslie Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity."
Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said
"Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said
The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.
.
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.
If it were the impact of the jet, the collapses would have occured almost instanteously. If it were the fuel burning alone, it could not have happened. That's an impossibility.
Think.
it wasn't just the impact of the jet...it just wasn't fuel burning in that skyscraper...unless the entire building and everything in it was fire resistant.
It may be impossible, but it happened. Where's the evidence for set explosives? were traces of explosive materials found anywhere?
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
it wasn't just the impact of the jet...it just wasn't fuel burning in that skyscraper...unless the entire building and everything in it was fire resistant.
It may be impossible, but it happened. Where's the evidence for set explosives? were traces of explosive materials found anywhere?
It was never investigated. The whole scrap heap was shipped off before anyone thought to question otherwise. All we have as evidence is logic with these videos and the people who were there.
it wasn't just the impact of the jet...it just wasn't fuel burning in that skyscraper...unless the entire building and everything in it was fire resistant.
It may be impossible, but it happened. Where's the evidence for set explosives? were traces of explosive materials found anywhere?
My stance is that the entire idea of fire melting steel is just ridiculous.
"When he designed the twin towers, Minoru Yamasaki calculated the damage that could result from a plane striking the buildings. Air traffic controllers permitted planes to travel at 180 miles-per-hour within New York City’s air space. Using a Boeing 707 in his model, and factoring in the maximum speed of 180 mph, Yamasaki determined that seven floors on one side only would be demolished, but the building would stand."
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 was never investigated. The whole scrap heap was shipped off before anyone thought to question otherwise. All we have as evidence is logic with these videos and the people who were there.
Not true. The EPA sampled the dust in the air from a dozen sites all around the site. All samples were chemically analysed and the results published. I'm sure they still have samples for future reference.
"When he designed the twin towers, Minoru Yamasaki calculated the damage that could result from a plane striking the buildings. Air traffic controllers permitted planes to travel at 180 miles-per-hour within New York City’s air space. Using a Boeing 707 in his model, and factoring in the maximum speed of 180 mph, Yamasaki determined that seven floors on one side only would be demolished, but the building would stand."
So this negates the entire "it was designed to take it" argument.
So this negates the entire "it was designed to take it" argument.
Nice find!
It does nothing for explaining melted steel.
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.
Not true. The EPA sampled the dust in the air from a dozen sites all around the site. All samples were chemically analysed and the results published. I'm sure they still have samples for future reference.
What did they find of significance?
Tritium
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Tritium is used in exit signs to light the exit in the event of an electrical outage or a fire. Signs often have several curies of tritium in them. If the exit signs were severely damaged, HT gas might escape into the local area, but it should be dispersed by ventilation or wind quickly. The damaged sign would be expected to have relatively high levels of tritium on it, and should not be handled.
How many exit signs do you think were in the WTC complex at the time of collapse?
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.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.
from the same source as above
Ok this could work, however this bit strikes me as interesting:
"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure"
If these angle clips put a limit on the design allowables to the extent that it wasnt in fact designed the way it was supposed to be, then why the claims that it was? These were surely factored in to any claims about the capabilities of the buildings safety features?
Also the clearly melted steel seen in the video posted by the Roland TDK model.
The report you posted clearly defines the heats that could have been achieved by any fire that day, addressing all issues concerning flammables of all descriptions.
It also states that:
"However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."
1. "Limiting factors on design allowables" which meant that the design was in fact flawed when it goes on to claim it wasnt.
2. Clear evidence of melted steel that it clearly states could not possibly have happened.
3. Lets also discuss the pilot skills necessary that were mentioned by Strangest Tribe's ex Navy flyer father.
Comments
So what if they were designed to withstand the impact. Read what I posted again, it was the combination of the collision and the fire.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
They were designed to withstand and survive the entire event not just the impact.
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'm not a conspiracy nut... but some of this makes sense.
My father flew jets in the Navy... right after 9-11 he told me he was suspicious of the story that 3-4 inexperienced pilots could maneuver these passenger planes with such precision. I don't think he's a conspiracy nut... he was just pointing out that the guys that did this had more than a few hours of flight training under their belts. The planes were already several hundred miles out of New York before they were Hi-Jacked. The Hi-jackers would have had to reset their bearings from about 30000 feet and about 400-500 miles from the WTC. An experienced pilot that had flown the route before would be familiar with the landmarks but woud still need help with the navigation (air traffic control). To an inexperienced pilot, circling back and finding their target (NYC) would be a longshot. Especially for 2 inexperienced pilots that didn't communicate with anyone on the ground.
My dad told me that back in the 70's (before computers did everything) pilots had to rely almost 70% on radio contact. Many passenger jets that lost radio contact flew blind and relied on the pilot's experience. This happened once when a pilot landed in Cleveland and thought he was landing in Detroit.
If my dad questions this logic, then I'm not so sure I wouldn't question some of the points made here.
I'm not sure the best way is to actually believe everything you are told, conspiracy nuts or not. One can only look at history to see even larger conspiracies that occured right under everyone's nose.
Does the Holocaust ring a bell?
For every respected engineer and college professor that has gone out of his way to twist the facts to make them fit is an engineer and college professor who see the collapse for what it was and instead of trying to think of a incredibly illaborate reason (for the little people who will believe anything) for why they collapsed, just tell it like they see it.
So what makes one more right than the other? Their all respected people.
I personally am going with, it looked like a demolition. I don't need some idiot payed by the goverment who spent months and months twisting the facts to choose that decision for me.
And you call logical twisting facts, you really must believe 2+2=5.
And whats the media got to do with it, they just put out what thier told, you don't really think you have a free and independent press over there do you.
Throughout history there have been many attacks carried out by goverments and blamed on other people just to get thier countries people to fall into line, look it up you'll be surprised. And my personal view is if goverments have done it before they sure as hell would do it again.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
he was on the history channel once talking about what they designed the tower to withstand, i remember a point being that "withstand" meant the impact of an aircraft wouldn't knock it over.
Well, it would appear that possibly the design didn't work out like it was supposed to. That happens from time to time.
"It was a fully laden aircraft, it was piloted by a suicidal pilot bent on converting this aircraft into a ballistic missile," he said. "That was not a design consideration."
From the article link on this page. I keep hearing all of the conspiracy theorists (especially you) citing how we shouldn't believe what the experts as well as the government tells us. But where is your data originating from? And please do not direct me to truth.org or some other CS site. Do you have viable proof or at least a group of respected opinions that back your claim that the Twin Towers should have withstood the attack without issue? Key word being viable. I don't want to watch some two hour movie narrated by some grade schooler telling me that a plane didn't crash in Pennsylvania.
"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!"
Ok, I will keep believing 2+2=5 and you keep believing what a couple of nut jobs are saying on the internet.
Also, of course it looked like implosion...the fucking building was collapsing. That is what happens in an implosion. What did you expect to happen? There be another huge explosion and the building explodes outward. And you probably are one of these people that think the building fell within its own footrprint. Give me a break. Take a look at ground zero and pictures of it afterwards. Also, to give our government and people of the media which would have had to be involved too credit for such a large cover up is crazy.
But I am wasting my breath. The government blew up the WTC's, we didn't land on the moon and I am going to guess that explosives were on the USS Arizona during Pearl Harbor because there is no way a ship could sink that fast.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
Ok i ignored it the first time but you passed up the opportunity to not look foolish. You take a look at "Grayound Zearo" and without thinking so literally tell me how big the ruined area is, this building was 1/4 of a mile high, it fell down and did little damage to any surrounding buildings, apart from wtc7 which collapsed, which is logical as it was so much closer than any other building. Truth be told if you were to have drawn a chalk line around the base of the towers before it collapsed it would not have all laid to rest in this outline, is this where you're confusion lies?
But i am wasting my breath, theres no precedent for governments to misuse they're powers, the US government has never acted in an underhand and shady way and acts only for the good of the people US and the world at large, and it is currently in the process of expending billions of dollars and thousands of US lives in a noble attempt to free the people of the middle-east from oppression.
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Thank you dude, so we're clear it fell in its own footprint(ish for u Waves).
Now can we deal with the speed at which it did this?
Because this quote states that "given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity"
So this is the important issue, as had there not been that speed of fall, there would have been a lateral fall as it held up on the floors below and toppled.
hence why people say it is like a demolition.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.
from the same source as above
All buildings are designed with fire in mind. Mainly because they all catch fire at some point in their lives. Again I believe this is more media spin.
It's like saying they had no idea (at all) that plane crashes actually cause fire, or jet fuel is not flammable prior to to 1972-73.
Yeahh ok...
More media bullshit designed to evade the obvious...
Take a big bite...mmmm
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)
(")_(")
for those that would argue this was during clean up,... are firemen the ones who were cutting the beams? why didn't they cut the beams to the ground?
to me, this is the best evidence i've seen of a 'demolition'.
~Ron Burgundy
If it were the impact of the jet, the collapses would have occured almost instanteously. If it were the fuel burning alone, it could not have happened. That's an impossibility.
Think.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
"A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets.
"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Leslie Robertson, the project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity."
Another architect of the WTC, Aaron Swirski, lives in Israel and spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio after the attack: "It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of attack," he said
"Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager, watched in confusion as the towers came down. "It was over-designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, high winds, bombings and an airplane hitting it," he said
The second plane nearly missed the South Tower, cutting through a corner. Most of its fuel burned in an outside explosion. However, this building collapsed first, long before the North Tower, into which a similar plane entered completely.
.
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)
(")_(")
it wasn't just the impact of the jet...it just wasn't fuel burning in that skyscraper...unless the entire building and everything in it was fire resistant.
It may be impossible, but it happened. Where's the evidence for set explosives? were traces of explosive materials found anywhere?
It was never investigated. The whole scrap heap was shipped off before anyone thought to question otherwise. All we have as evidence is logic with these videos and the people who were there.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
My stance is that the entire idea of fire melting steel is just ridiculous.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It would be fair to note that:
"When he designed the twin towers, Minoru Yamasaki calculated the damage that could result from a plane striking the buildings. Air traffic controllers permitted planes to travel at 180 miles-per-hour within New York City’s air space. Using a Boeing 707 in his model, and factoring in the maximum speed of 180 mph, Yamasaki determined that seven floors on one side only would be demolished, but the building would stand."
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)
(")_(")
what about fire weakening steel?
I'm not saying the gov't has been 100 percent honest about 9-11, but i'm also not going to buy into the conspiracy stuff b/c of that.
with that I'm going to enjoy the rest of my evening. have a good weekend.
Nah. The fueled fire needs to maintain a temperature to do that, and that is another impossibility somebody wants us to believe.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Not true. The EPA sampled the dust in the air from a dozen sites all around the site. All samples were chemically analysed and the results published. I'm sure they still have samples for future reference.
So this negates the entire "it was designed to take it" argument.
Nice find!
It does nothing for explaining melted steel.
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)
(")_(")
What did they find of significance?
Tritium
What about the "melted steel"? What specifically would you like addressed?
So what? Tritium is used in thousands of things.
Tritium is used in exit signs to light the exit in the event of an electrical outage or a fire. Signs often have several curies of tritium in them. If the exit signs were severely damaged, HT gas might escape into the local area, but it should be dispersed by ventilation or wind quickly. The damaged sign would be expected to have relatively high levels of tritium on it, and should not be handled.
How many exit signs do you think were in the WTC complex at the time of collapse?
post #84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzOuyin_2as
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)
(")_(")
Ok this could work, however this bit strikes me as interesting:
"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure"
If these angle clips put a limit on the design allowables to the extent that it wasnt in fact designed the way it was supposed to be, then why the claims that it was? These were surely factored in to any claims about the capabilities of the buildings safety features?
Also the clearly melted steel seen in the video posted by the Roland TDK model.
The report you posted clearly defines the heats that could have been achieved by any fire that day, addressing all issues concerning flammables of all descriptions.
It also states that:
"However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."
1. "Limiting factors on design allowables" which meant that the design was in fact flawed when it goes on to claim it wasnt.
2. Clear evidence of melted steel that it clearly states could not possibly have happened.
3. Lets also discuss the pilot skills necessary that were mentioned by Strangest Tribe's ex Navy flyer father.
Somethings wrong, lets get to the bottom of it.