9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Valhall

 

You are being quite uncivil. Is there some valid reason for that?

I did link in two sites. I will link the other again. The site below gives a highly accurate description, complete with photos, of how the WTC towers were constructed.

Again, you can choose to study it and compare to Purdue's simulation, while keeping an objective mindset, or not. That is entirely up to you.

911research.wtc7.net...

A good portion of my counterpoints are sitting at the above website link. I am not going to quote the entire website, when it is so easy to access by the link I posted twice, per your double requests.

I don't believe I have been uncivil in any regard unless you call disagreeing with you uncivil. That is the exact site which I read, and which does not have any information that substantiates your claims.

Once again, I'm asking you to back up the statements you have made. That link doesn't do it.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Valhall]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
LoL!
If this picture doesn't speak louder than words for the second time I am thinking I am not going to bother to continue this because your just being hard headed.

Well i tend to go with the part of the video that shows from the front that the airframe is shredded as it comes through the outter walls, not that much left to do damge to the center core.

Also the actual photos of the hole made by the plane show the wings barely making it through and the wing tips dod not even make it through.

Ultima, IF there was no damage to the center core, then how come in BOTH towers the stairwells (which were within the center core) were damaged to the point they were impassable? (well five of the six were impassable anyway)

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well ultima.
A couple of things Val has said comes to mind.
I refer you back.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Ultima, IF there was no damage to the center core, then how come in BOTH towers the stairwells (which were within the center core) were damaged to the point they were impassable? (well five of the six were impassable anyway)

Damaged stairwells does mean damge to the core.

Originally posted by Valhall

I don't believe I have been uncivil in any regard unless you call disagreeing with you uncivil. That is the exact site which I read, and which does not have any information that substantiates your claims.

You are certainly entitled to your own self-assessment. However, you were not on the receiving end of your comments. I was.

Once again, I'm asking you to back up the statements you have made. That link doesn't do it.

After placing links to qualified substantiation of actual construction of the twin towers, you have already given obvious impression nothing is going to satisfy you, even if the architect himself told you Purdue is wrong.

I already agreed to disagree with your opinions several posts ago. Your choice to make the comparisons or not. I also wrote that at least twice.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well thank you for agreeing that damage to the stairwells severe enough to make them impassable means that the core was damaged.

"Damaged, blocked stairwells", without details, could mean the many plies of drywall began to fall off the inside steel frame (not the core support units), of the inside center core framing, and blocked the stairs. The steel could be uncompromised at that point in time. Details always matter.

reply to post by OrionStars

Orion? Um.
And there you go attacking while pretending to agree to disagree.

reply to post by OrionStars


Dry wall blocking a staircase does not impassable make.
Dry wall is after all rather easly moved or crushed.
Would take alot of drywall anyway, more than could possibly have just fallen into the stairway from its surroundings.



[edit on 3-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I did my detailed comparisons long ago. I found Purdue to be quite unrealistic in simulation. Then very recently ran across the following as well. Please do note who is sponsoring the website for the Purdue Institute of Homeland Security:

www.purdue.edu...

That is a blatant conflict of interest on the part of Purdue University. They cannot claim objectivity in research, under such blatant conflict of interest status.

I am also quite familiar with at least one other study, having nothing to do with 9/11/2001, that ended being proved bogus as well. Purdue has never been high on my list for consideration of realiability in research study. That started well over 15 years ago making that discovery for the first time.

reply to post by OrionStars


At December 3 2007 well after the video.



[edit on 3-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Referred to Purdue as a person? I have long been aware that Purdue is a university. However, it is Purdue's name on anything done by any personnel in the name of Purdue University. I did not mention any personnel names. Therefore, I have no idea how I can be falsely accused of even remotely implying Purdue University is a person.

Actually, when spelled as Perdue, that is the name of a family, whose name appears on chicken parts packaged, and found in grocery store meat cases. I have not been referring to the Perdue family name.

Back to the regularly scheduled program - "9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence".

reply to post by OrionStars


Yeh. I misread a statement you read. I apologise.
But to bring up parts where I am not misreading.

1) You saw my comments about drywall blocking a staircase right?

2) How would an architect know what would happen to his building design should a 757 hit it? And if he/she/them has made such statements could you show me proof please, you know about Perdue being wrong?
And where is his qualification to make calls on High Velocity Impacts involving planes and his building? Yes it is a plausability the possiblity was looked at
Or was it as I surmised just another insult while claiming to be agreeing to disagree?

Oh and I find this interesting. Though and note they did get the planes wrong but eh. Very simular designs

The Boeing 767, a wide-body jet, was introduced at around the same time as the 757, its narrowbody sister, in 1981-1982

Source:Wikipedia Entry: Boeing 767

Are tall buildings in Hong Kong safe from terrorist plane crashes?
by Professor S. Kitipornchai

No-one will ever forget September 11, 2001 – a day when the most powerful country in the world was caught completely off guard. Groups of well co-ordinated terrorists managed with relative ease to hijack a number of commercial planes and slam them into the 110-storey twin towers of the World Trade Centre and a section of the Pentagon.

The two Boeing 767 planes that crashed into the twin towers had just taken off, and both carried full tanks of fuel (91,000 litres). The twin towers were completely destroyed with the loss of over 6000 lives. The north tower, which was hit first, at about the 90th floor, stood for 1 hour and 45 minutes, whilst the south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, collapsed after only 45 minutes. Both towers collapsed spectacularly in front of millions of television viewers around the world. This raises some fundamental questions: why and how did the towers collapse, and are tall buildings in Hong Kong safe from similar attacks?

Engineers have anticipated planes crashing into tall buildings

The twin towers were the tallest buildings (416 m tall) in the world when they were completed in the 1970s. The buildings, 63.4m x 63.4m in plan, were framed in structural steel with closely spaced exterior steel columns, each of which were 476 mm wide and 560 mm apart, forming an exterior hollow tube wall. This wall acted as a structural frame, and provided the necessary lateral resistance. The central steel core of the building was designed to carry vertical or gravity loads. Horizontal steel trusses that spanned 18.3 m from exterior tube wall to the core supported the concrete floor, which also acted as a rigid diaphragm at each level.

Engineers have long anticipated the scenario of planes crashing into tall buildings. In 1945, a USAF bomber crashed into the 79th floor of the 102-storey Empire State Building in Manhattan. The crash occurred during a misty night, and the damage was restricted to the impact area. There have also been a number of near misses.

One of the criteria used in the design of the World Trade Centre was that if a Boeing 707 should hit either of the towers, then it would go right through without damaging the other storeys. This would be like punching a hole through the wall of a hollow tube without making the tube collapse. Calculations can easily show that such an impact will have little or no effect on the overall structural integrity of the building because the mass of the plane is very small compared to the mass resistance of the building. In a similar manner, the explosion of a terrorist bomb in the north tower basement during 1993 created a large hole, but did no real damage to the overall structural integrity of the building.

However, the Boeing 767s that hit the towers were much larger than expected, and had much greater fuel capacities. The impact of the fuel explosion and the ensuing fire was not considered in the building design.

Buildings collapsed because of explosions and fire

Video evidence suggests that the initial impact would have caused only local structural damage. The towers would have survived the impacts had it not been for the ensuing explosions and fire. The 250 or so fire fighters and police officers were ordered into the towers in the belief that they would not collapse – sadly none of them survived. This was a tragic error of judgment. An order for immediate evacuation should have been made at the very beginning.

With so much fuel, the temperature inside the buildings would have exceeded 1000°C. It was only a matter of time before the steel columns and the supporting floor trusses softened and lost all strength, precipitating the inevitable collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact. Once this happened, the huge mass of all the floors above would have simply crushed the intact floors below, resulting in the collapse of one storey after another like a row of dominoes. The south tower collapsed first because the plane entered the building at the corner, cutting through the exterior structural frame to either side, whereas the plane that hit the north tower entered more favourably near the middle of the building. It was fortunate that both towers collapsed almost vertically, otherwise there would have been much more devastation.

Are tall buildings in Hong Kong safe from terrorist plane crashes?

The attack on the World Trade Centre towers is thought to have been in the planning for some years, and seems to have been the result of perceived American foreign policy bias in the Middle East. There is no reason to suggest that Hong Kong will be targeted in a similar manner. However, we need not be complacent. Tall buildings in Hong Kong or anywhere else in the world would have met the same fate as did the towers in New York. There was nothing structurally wrong with the design of the twin towers. On the contrary, the buildings performed extremely well in the circumstances. Most other buildings hit by a Boeing 767 with a capacity fuel load would have collapsed almost immediately. The high degree of redundancy inherent in the exterior structural frame delayed the collapse of the buildings by about an hour, thus allowing thousands of occupants the precious time to escape.

It would be hard to imagine how any tall building could be designed to withstand attacks of this nature. Such buildings would be massive and the cost prohibitive. Only nuclear power plants are designed to withstand explosions and fire. Even if we can design and construct new buildings to resist such attacks, how do we make safe a multitude of existing buildings all over the world?

The answer may well lie in the design of aircraft. How do we keep planes out of the hands of terrorists? The challenge is to design them in a manner that would prohibit unauthorised entry into the cockpit even if terrorists could get on board. Only in that way could we arrest the tragedy of passenger planes being used as deadly bombs.

AIIB Newsletter, October edition.

Professor S. Kitipornchai is a Chair Professor in the Department of Building and Construction at the City University of Hong Kong

Source:Can tall buildings be designed against plane crash: University of Hong Kong



[edit on 3-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 3-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Ultima, IF there was no damage to the center core, then how come in BOTH towers the stairwells (which were within the center core) were damaged to the point they were impassable? (well five of the six were impassable anyway)

Damaged stairwells does mean damge to the core.

Does it though? If those stairwells were reinforced I'd agree, but as far as I remember, they weren't reinforced, so there was just drywall between them and everything else. And when considering the large fuel air explosion of the fuel, thats quite easily blown in so as to be impassable.

reply to post by apex


Once again.
Dry wall debris will not block a stairwell as to make it impassable perhaps at massive amounts but even then, come on.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Are tall buildings in Hong Kong safe from terrorist plane crashes?
by Professor S. Kitipornchai
The two Boeing 767 planes that crashed into the twin towers had just taken off, and both carried full tanks of fuel (91,000 litres). The twin towers were completely destroyed with the loss of over 6000 lives. The north tower, which was hit first, at about the 90th floor, stood for 1 hour and 45 minutes, whilst the south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, collapsed after only 45 minutes. Both towers collapsed spectacularly in front of millions of television viewers around the world. This raises some fundamental questions: why and how did the towers collapse,

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

reply to post by ULTIMA1
I don't think there's actually a precedent for a steel-framed building being set on fire by a large, fully fueled aircraft hitting it at maximum speed, well not before 2001. It IS the precedent for future comparison.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I don't think there's actually a precedent for a steel-framed building being set on fire by a large, fully fueled aircraft hitting it at maximum speed, well not before 2001. It IS the precedent for future comparison.

But as most reports state the buildings withstood the planes impacts, which only leaves the fires to casue the collapse.

Also most reports state that most of the jet fuel was burned off in the intial explosion, what was left burned off quickly.

Can you tell me what plane hit building 7 ? Oh thats right no plane hit building 7 so no jet fuel.

all i ask of the government is to provide any knowledge, proof, history, video, engineering study or any other documentation, where a building has come down like the WTC buildings that did "NOT", repeat "NOT" involve controlled demolitions.