World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

How DARE they design a building that is not impervious to a skyscraper collapsing into it and setting it on fire.

How dare they designed a building that collapsed due to a crashing airplane, that was just 20% bigger than the one that it should withstand easily?
I see no coherent theory to accept the explanation for those falling towers in the first place. Explain that and we may talk about one failing column, that 'magically' let to the collapse of a third building into it's own footprint. Just another conspiracy-theory on a big pile of crap, that lacks any objectivity at all.

And excuse my French if you like, I'm just a lazy Kraut.

When they designed it to withstand a plane hit, what angle did they use? What speed? What floor? What fuel load? This design took place in the 60s remember. No computers. Slide rules. Paper. Pencils.

a reply to: jaffo

The problem here is that you just keep moving the goal posts. Nothing will ever satisfy you. There does not need to be a scientific study done to your own personal satisfaction.

We all saw that, yes. And NIST does indeed explain another event, something entirely unrelated.
You guys 'n gals could have nailed the topic with plain facts by now, which you couldn't.

Alien Ray? We could go with any theory then, who ceres? Any suggestions?

a reply to: PublicOpinion We have. You just refuse to accept them.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

How DARE they design a building that is not impervious to a skyscraper collapsing into it and setting it on fire.

How dare they designed a building that collapsed due to a crashing airplane, that was just 20% bigger than the one that it should withstand easily?
I see no coherent theory to accept the explanation for those falling towers in the first place. Explain that and we may talk about one failing column, that 'magically' let to the collapse of a third building into it's own footprint. Just another conspiracy-theory on a big pile of crap, that lacks any objectivity at all.

And excuse my French if you like, I'm just a lazy Kraut.

When they designed it to withstand a plane hit, what angle did they use? What speed? What floor? What fuel load? This design took place in the 60s remember. No computers. Slide rules. Paper. Pencils.

They were aware of the plane that hit the Empire State Building and did not collapse, and over engineered from there. The Towers were built to withstand not one, but two impacts. If you want the specs, call NIST.

a reply to: ugmold

The Towers were built to withstand not one, but two impacts.

I have never read or even heard 'two'.
Can you post any reference to that?
Here is a presentation given at Stanford by Leslie Robertson, one of the designers of WTC 1&2.

Jump to the 44:45 point to hear about the planes.

a reply to: samkent

Should refer to book "CITY IN TH SKY: The Raise and Fall of the World Trade Center" by 2 New York Times reporters

Goes into detail concerning building design and why certain options were taken

a reply to: samkent
I had a the saved on my youtube channel years ago, and it has since been "no longer available", like so many great reference 911 videos. I have looked on occasion for it again to no avail.

samkent said.
I have never read or even heard 'two'.
Can you post any reference to that?
Here is a presentation given at Stanford by Leslie Robertson, one of the designers of WTC 1&2.

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

How DARE they design a building that is not impervious to a skyscraper collapsing into it and setting it on fire.

How dare they designed a building that collapsed due to a crashing airplane, that was just 20% bigger than the one that it should withstand easily?
I see no coherent theory to accept the explanation for those falling towers in the first place. Explain that and we may talk about one failing column, that 'magically' let to the collapse of a third building into it's own footprint. Just another conspiracy-theory on a big pile of crap, that lacks any objectivity at all.

And excuse my French if you like, I'm just a lazy Kraut.

When they designed it to withstand a plane hit, what angle did they use? What speed? What floor? What fuel load? This design took place in the 60s remember. No computers. Slide rules. Paper. Pencils.

They were aware of the plane that hit the Empire State Building and did not collapse, and over engineered from there. The Towers were built to withstand not one, but two impacts. If you want the specs, call NIST.

Havers. Nist says nothing of the sort. It states that the impact of a [single] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

Nothing like what you've claimed. And you don't even need to read the report for that. That part is on the faq section.

a reply to: ugmold

I don't know if they would have withstand two planes. We are talking about a lost study and there was no other done so far.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors.. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

www.nist.gov...

According to NIST, the WTC-buildings had no cores at all. Or they were not harmed by the impact at all, just chew on that. Pretty outstanding, isn't it? They assume enough structural damage for a collapse (in sharp contrast to the design/ structural engineering), but fail to deliver substantial evidence for their claim.

Why should anybody take them serious anymore? I just don't get it.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: ugmold

I don't know if they would have withstand two planes. We are talking about a lost study and there was no other done so far.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors.. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

www.nist.gov...

According to NIST, the WTC-buildings had no cores at all. Or they were not harmed by the impact at all, just chew on that. Pretty outstanding, isn't it? They assume enough structural damage for a collapse (in sharp contrast to the design/ structural engineering), but fail to deliver substantial evidence for their claim.

Why should anybody take them serious anymore? I just don't get it.

Because the buildings did in fact collapse and because the planes were seen slamming into them and because there is zero evidence for explosives. That about cover it?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

"The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to the principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns)..."


"In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors"

"In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls..........WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core including one of the heavily loaded corner columns...."

www.nist.gov...


Just curious since this is from your post "According to NIST, the WTC-buildings had no cores at all" .....


Have you actually read the report?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: PublicOpinion

"The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to the principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns)..."


"In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors"

"In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls..........WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core including one of the heavily loaded corner columns...."

www.nist.gov...


Just curious since this is from your post "According to NIST, the WTC-buildings had no cores at all" .....


Have you actually read the report?

Nah, just watched a YouTube summary. ;-)

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Just curious since this is from your post "According to NIST, the WTC-buildings had no cores at all" .....


Have you actually read the report?

You would like to call this report a scientific study then? You know peer-reviews and all that, do you?

Fire weakened the cores?
Well, sure... the engineers were all nuts and never did their job correctly. I would like to see some prove for this BS of lousy theory now. My assumption is not verified as well, see any difference? Yeah I know. The only difference I can see, is that nobody needs to point out the lacking of any scientific - and peer reviewed - study to prove me wrong.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And again, you show that you have not read the report. Thanks for playing.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

you show that you have not read the report.

And I would like to buy some of your magic snake-oil now. You don't happen to have some evide... ah, forget about it. I'm just another twooferprick.

Light the bonfire!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

you show that you have not read the report.

And I would like to buy some of your magic snake-oil now. You don't happen to have some evide... ah, forget about it. I'm just another twooferprick.

Light the bonfire!

Look, he's clearly right. You have never actually read the report. Several times now it has been shown that you make claims about what *someone told you the report says* as opposed to what the report actually said. These are facts.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

You mention "scientific" as if science was not involved at all in the investigation, when if you actually read it, you would see that science very much was used. You mention "peer review" not understanding that "peer review" is rarely involved in investigating situations like this, although there were a ton of experts in their field that reviewed the report and found no serious issues with it.

Again, maybe if you read...and understood...the whole thing you MIGHT figure things out.

a reply to: jaffo




We are still talking about opinions regarding your 'facts'. Show me this scientific study in the 'report' regarding the cores and everybody, who can explain the deeper meaning of peer-reviews, should be able to demonstrate how wrong you are.

There is none, is it? What would you call a 'scientific study' then?
This 'special' sort of 'paper' you folks usually sell some magic snake-oil with if you don't spread ridiculous claims regarding your fellow ATSliens on ATS? Get a grip, mate!

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

although there were a ton of experts in their field that reviewed the report and found no serious issues with it.

You know. There are funny things on ATS and then we have this: more funny things on ATS!
How very well ... nuanced!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: jaffo

We are still talking about opinions regarding your 'facts'. Show me this scientific study in the 'report' regarding the cores and everybody, who can explain the deeper meaning of peer-reviews, should be able to demonstrate how wrong you are.

There is none, is it? What would you call a 'scientific study' then?
This 'special' sort of 'paper' you folks usually sell some magic snake-oil with if you don't spread ridiculous claims regarding your fellow ATSliens on ATS? Get a grip, mate!

You are long on requests for proof but very short on any yourself. So. . .